U.S. to close..

[bletso]

Originally Posted by pdjb

We the people don't count anymore.?

Don't get your remark? Religious, political or other idolatry is something I find astounding and from my POV beyond comprehension. That's just me. You were referencing my remark on the Holy Koolaid video, correct?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Can you see in LE’s statement that the partisan issue he is having is between a system that is prone to fraud and one that is not.

Well, every system is potentially prone to fraud. Or do you think that Mr Trump was -gasp- just wasting our time?

The point was - I think electronic voting systems could be made more trustworthy and less open to fraud, (or the perception of fraud) with some improvements... but since electronic systems can be easier to deploy (eg as a free downloaded phone application), they would also make voting simpler and easier, and we know who wouldn't go for that.

Clearer?

Y'know, it takes all the fun out of this if we have to stop and repeatedly explain simple points.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Nope, it's a form of Quality Control and it doesn't have to be based on individual claims but should be done by independent outsiders (of course, always a challenge in politics).



When you do engineering design plans, you don't simply trust that the guy did them right. Doesn't matter if he has 30yrs of experience and has always done a great job. You do an internal review and then the client typically does a review.



Where you see that QC process cut out, you often see major problems show up down the road.



Only difference with politics is when the group running the show has an incentive to encourage those problems, they actually like that the QC process is short circuited.



I do agree, we need reform. There's no good justification to be using mailed in paper ballots or to have people manually counting. Yes, there needs to be security but the reform needs to be started now...we shouldn't have major reforms being implemented on the fly a couple months ahead of an election.

Why reform an election process described as one of the safest ever

Again, wheres the actual smoke . Nothing wrong with mail on ballots , even late ones. The goal is to record people’s votes not to erect artificial barriers to voting.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Y'know, it takes all the fun out of this if we have to stop and repeatedly explain simple points.

Why do you have to act like this?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Why do you have to act like this?

Because this is CF, not the floor of the Senate? I'm up for a serious discussion if you are. If you're just gonna keep shooting from the hip, I'm not gonna invest much.

[JPA Cate]

Easy, guys. Please remember to keep your discussion here respectful. Quit posting for a while if you feel so annoyed that you can't keep it polite.

The point is that politics really aren't appropriate for Cruisers Forum anyway; this thread has been very difficult as to moderation; it has taken up an inordinate amount of work; and it will be summarily closed if politeness doesn't reign henceforth.

JPA Cate

[grantmc]

Originally Posted by GordMay

... “... This is problematic for multiple reasons. First of all, it is an argument built on the false assumption that American democracy is not vulnerable to authoritarian interventions and power grabs like “lesser” democracies elsewhere in the world, and especially in Africa. It is an argument born out of America’s belief in its own moral superiority and its political class’s inherent racial biases ...”
➥ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...mp-and-mugabe/

One facet (to me) that the US democratic system lacks is that the US Cabinet is NOT elected. The Cabinet is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Isn't that a pure act of cronyism?

In almost every other democracy cabinet members can only be selected from elected members. So the voters effectively chose, and can vote them out too.

In addition if a cabinet minister is dismissed by the PM, they are still a member of the parliament and so can be a real thorn in the side of the Govt.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think that many, both inside and outside of the US, are simply relieved with the outcome of !Trump (logical notation for not-Trump). No sunshine, unicorns, or much of anything else required. Speaks volumes, don't it...

Indeed this was an election that was about electing anyone but Trump

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by grantmc

One facet (to me) that the US democratic system lacks is that the US Cabinet is NOT elected. The Cabinet is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Isn't that a pure act of cronyism?

In almost every other democracy cabinet members can only be selected from elected members. So the voters effectively chose, and can vote them out too.

In addition if a cabinet minister is dismissed by the PM, they are still a member of the parliament and so can be a real thorn in the side of the Govt.

In Canada, at least... it is not a legal requirement that a cabinet member also be an elected MP. It's the usual practice but not a requirement.

[AKA-None]

Working in infosec I’m quite frightened by purely electronic voting.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

In Canada, at least... it is not a legal requirement that a cabinet member also be an elected MP. It's the usual practice but not a requirement.

Same in Finland..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

In Canada, at least... it is not a legal requirement that a cabinet member also be an elected MP. It's the usual practice but not a requirement.

Indeed, it is by tradition, not law. Although rare in the Canadian experience, it certainly does happen from time to time that a non-MP (Member of Parliament) is appointed to the cabinet. Tradition does demand that this person seek a seat in the House asap, but it is only tradition.

So, in theory, Canada's cabinet could be 100% appointed from non-elected folks. But happily this has never happened.

But this underlines the fragility of most of our democracies. So much of it stands on respect for tradition, and the good will of the participants. When a leader has no such respect, the whole system becomes threatened.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by grantmc

One facet (to me) that the US democratic system lacks is that the US Cabinet is NOT elected. The Cabinet is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Isn't that a pure act of cronyism?

In almost every other democracy cabinet members can only be selected from elected members. So the voters effectively chose, and can vote them out too.. . .

I don't think any of this is true. What you are describing is a very unusual system which as far as I know exists only in paliamentary systems of the British Commonwealth.

In MOST democracies outside of the British Commonwealth, perhaps all of them, the cabinet, or "cabinet of ministers", is appointed by the head of government, is appointed and dismissed from time to time at the will of the head of government, and there is no requirement that the minister is chosen from among legislators. In most countries it is not only not required, but it is FORBIDDEN, that a minister simultaneously serve as a member of the legislative branch.

In Germany, for example, the head of government is the Kanzler. The Kanzler appoints his (or her) ministers AFTER he (or she) is certified in office, and dismisses and appoints them from time to time as he or she pleases. There is nothing like the U.S. Senate confirmation; the Bundespräsident, the formal head of state, certifies the appointments of the Kanzler, but has no legal right to object to the Kanzler's decisions (unlike the U.S. Senate, which may refuse to confirm a cabinet appointment).

The Germans consider the British system of choosing ministers from legislators to be actually UNdemocratic, because it blurs the separation of powers. A recent comment:

"Demokratie bedeutet Gewaltenteilung. Ein Abgeordneter gehört zur Legislative. Das ist die Macht, die die Gesetze macht. Ein Minister gehört zur Executive. Das ist die Macht die die Gesetze ausführt. Bei einem Abgeordneten, der sogleich Minister ist, ist diese Teilung der Macht nicht mehr gegeben und das ist somit undemokratisch." https://www.gutefrage.net/frage/sind...ch-abgeordnete

A very astute comment (the Germans have superb political education in their schools): "Democracy means separation of powers. A legislator (MP) belongs to the Legislative Branch. That is the power which makes laws. A minister belongs to the Executive Branch. That is the power which executes laws. In the case of a legislator (MP) who at the same time is a minister, the separation of powers no longer exists, and that is undemocratic."

In France, with their somewhat odd Presidential system, the Prime Minister is NOT the heirarchical superior to the other ministers, but the PM does propose the slate of ministers to the President, who then approves them. In France, if a newly appointed minister is a serving MP he is required to resign, but they usually are not. The current French PM is himself not and never was an MP -- he was the mayor of Le Havre. The Minister of Ecology, Hulot, has not even been in government service before he was appointed to the Council of Ministers -- he was a TV commentator. Likewise, the Minister of Justice, Bayrou, was never in parliament -- he has been a minister, and a city mayor.

So, none of this is true. The U.S. system is pretty normal -- the cabinet are the team of the head of government, and in nearly all democratic countries, the head of government has a pretty free hand in choosing them. They are NOT elected. If the people don't like what the cabinet is doing, that's down to the head of government under whom they serve. So they throw out the head of government, not the ministers individually. There is nothing undemocratic about that.

[goboatingnow]

But this underlines the fragility of most of our democracies. So much of it stands on respect for tradition, and the good will of the participants. When a leader has no such respect, the whole system becomes threatened.

Very true , we can , for those that want to look , see the corrosive effect on democracy when people create fake populist rhetoric , without any moral concern as to its truth and feed this to a section of the population that often through circumstance are particularly susceptible to being misled.

Our freedoms and democratic traditions are very fragile in reality

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Very true , we can , for those that want to look , see the corrosive effect on democracy when people create fake populist rhetoric , without any moral concern as to its truth and feed this to a section of the population that often through circumstance are particularly susceptible to being misled.

Our freedoms and democratic traditions are very fragile in reality

They are indeed, and in the U.S. we are seeing horrifying effects of the politicization of truth. This is absolutely horrifying:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-when-we-win/

"In 2018, after two years of media spinning tales about shady Russian infiltrators in our government, 67 percent of Democrats believed that Putin’s gremlins had bored into our voting machines and altered the outcome to put Donald Trump in the White House. [!!!] Today, 91 percent of Democrats believe the 2020 election was 'free and fair.' Does this mean Trump, unlike Barack Obama, was able to stop the Russians from 'interfering' in our democracy? Why, one wonders, would this alleged fascist do such a thing? . . .

" . . . There is no credible evidence Barack Obama is a foreigner. There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. . . there is no credible evidence that widespread cheating gave Joe Biden the presidency this year. It’s . . . clear that large numbers of partisans on both sides only believe elections are free and fair when they win."

It's only one step from that, to people simply not accepting the results of elections. A democracy can't exist under such conditions.