I have enjoyed the posts on the ETA situation. They remind me that, in a democracy, we must use the tools of the democracy for change. Please, all of us who are U.S. citizens, go vote today! Granted, the two main candidates offer little in the way of 'change.' Yet each vote is a decision. You've made certain decisions, you know the directions you support: please vote. And, not wanting to open a really hot topic thread, please think of those future Supreme Court nominees as you vote for President today!!

also think of Alaska and oil drilling...
PLEASE be smart and make the right choice!

[This message has been edited by Jen (edited 11-07-2000).]

also think of Alaska and if you'd like it to st
Sorry- I messed up here!
Just make sure you vote! (even if you may make the mistake of voting for dubya, at least you voted)

[This message has been edited by Jen (edited 11-07-2000).]

Glad someone brought this up - thanks, rgf. No matter how we feel about the current candidates and what they stand for - our individual vote is important - maybe more os this year than in most as the election's too close to call. The result might actually hinge on the 15 million absentee votes cast and/or an electoral college vote.

i too am with you on this one. despite my political leanings and personal beliefs in the u.s. systems of government, it is imperative that you vote. in order to practice the democracy we expect, you need to execise that privildge by getting to the polls.

I have to demur to the pleading that we MUST vote. It is true that we enjoy tremendous liberties and democracy in the USA; however, a non-vote can be as powerful as a vote. If we are not fully satisfied with the given candidates, it is perposterous to expect one to half heartedly vote the lesser of ttwo evil just for the sake of partaking in the process. A non-vote signals to future and current candidiates that they are not addressing the concerns of the electorate. A 50% turnout suggest either contentment by vast numbers or cynisism of the highest magnitude. We need to step back from the posture that one must vote at all costs( selling out ones beliefs) and move toward the correct view for our nation that a principled well thoghtout vote is our aim. Don't be goaded by friends and nieghbors to vote or else. Your friends may have the twinkle in their eyes for given candidate, but that twinkle is a deeply personal experience that will affect everyone differently.

BTW, In spite of my polemic, I did vote, but I do not think any less of my friends and nieghbore who choose not to vote, although they participate in the process by their nonvote. I thank them for their strong voice in our free forum, we call democracy.

Sorry, but no one 'listens' to the fact that there is a low or high voter turnout. Your not voting does not change anything in the democracy. Now, organzing, voting for a minor party, working actively for change-- that might get some attention. Staying home really says nothing. You'd have to get the numbers down to, say, a 25% turnout to make any statement and then what? Of course you don't have the obligation to vote. You have the right. And to stay home, too. Just don't delude yourself that non-participation is an impetus for change!

I have to say that I agree with rgf here. Not voting may be your statement, but a better one would be becoming actively involved insomething you DO believe in. I have seen what happens to people that live in countries where that is not permitted. One guy from Togo held (not led) a political meeting in his house, and every single person that was at that meeting is dead at the hands of the dictator. Except him (he managed to escape to R of Benin).

I am so excited and grateful for my voice, even if dissapointed by the loss of "my" candidates. That's why I think it is so damn touching and cool that the Spaniards are so passionate about voting, that they even voted onthe color of the Plaza Mayor. That lovely burgundy MEANS something.




[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 11-08-2000).]

One final thought, I am not urging nonparticipation , but rather, I am not scolding those in our midst who elect not to elect. Candidates sell theri ideas and visions for the future, Companies market product for consumption. If a candidate whishes to have his/her ideas supported, then that candidiate will seek out like minded members of society to back the candidate. The company wich fails to sell their goods to an existing market, will seek out and cater their products to new untapped markets. I believe that candidates wishing electoral success will develop their product(ideas) to an untapped market(electorate), if voters rebuke the lesser of two evil syndrome. Oh well, I do agree with getting involved, but do not see the wisdom of compelled participation. If voter turnout dropped to 25%, beleive me candidates would seek out the disenfranchised with gusto.

Cantankerous in LA.

Neil Peart said it best in song:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I was reading in earnest some of the recent news articles on the ETA situation (as per the original post on this thread), and people are starting to show up with signs that say "Ya no Basta". If you've been following this at all, you understand the change in position for those people.

Voting to me says "I'm taking action". Not voting is more like "act on me". I make it a rule to vote on all the issues that I understand. While sometimes that leads to an incomplete ballot, I haven't missed an election yet!

I agree with all the "voting people" for what I think is a very good reason: there is a space on the ballot to write in a candidate.

If you do not wish to chose one of the two main candidates, there are several more on that ballot AND that space.

In past years, I have simply written, "NONE OF THE ABOVE." You can do that. The CIA or FBI is not going to hunt you down for this and you are still getting your vote in / your point across.

Last year I put, "A really good woman for once." The year before, I wrote in, "anyone but the above candidates." (hehe).

This is not to suggest that you should take voting lightly. But, you do have the option in this country of writing in what you think. So, even by not voting, you are doing yourself a great disservice because you are not saying anything new. It is easier to not speak, then to speak--in any given circumstance.

If you don't believe in the major candidates' viewpoints, vote for what you do believe in.

And remember, this is something that the minority groups in this country had to fight for. If nothing else, people should vote just to insure that voting remains a right, not a privilege of the few wealthy white males in this country.

Americans can no longer legitimately say "My vote doesn't count." I used to think that not voting was an important statement. In fact, a political satirist wrote a book titled "If God Had Wanted Us to Vote He Would Have Given Us Candidates." The problem with silence is that it can be interpreted in too many different ways. I don't think there will ever be a candidate who will come close to sharing my views across the board, but I don't want to not use my voice.

Agree completely, Alejandro. No matter what you think of the canidates, there's got to be something you agree with one of them about, so let your voice be heard. But if you don't vote, OK. that just makes MY vote count that much more. Now, I'm a heck of a guy, but you don't want me making decisions about the government for you, do you? No, really, you can trust me.... //Peace to all

Impressions on the Presidential Election by Spaniards. I recently received this e-mail from my daughter who is doing a semester in Madrid.

"So in the last few days I had to listen to all of these comments
criticizing the U.S. and the elections and all of this drama, and I am
actually quite sick of having to defend/speak/comment on these issues. I
know no more about what happened than any other person that reads the
news, and no, the actions of politicians could not possibly represent what
the Spaniards like to define as the American spirit. Honestly you
couldn't possibly imagine how many times I have heard, "So whats with your
perfect democracy now?." The funny thing is that they are the first ones
to say that the United States is perfect. I don't know one U.S. citizen
that would make such a comment."

Oh Man. I Know exactly how your daughter feels. I think a lot of europeans feel that we think our own system perfect and look at certain actions by the U.S. government as demonstrating that. When I lived in France, particularly, I got so tired of being "challenged" all the time, and sometimes found myself defending stuff that I didn't really believe. When I moved to Chile, it was such a relief, because people didn't do that. By the end of my two years there, I was like, "why doesn't anyone want to TALK about anything here?" It drove me nuts. I actually missed the dscussions/debates/arguments I had in Spain and France, if you can believe it.

It is an interesting exercise in many ways, because it forces you to define your feelings and opinions about your culture and country. It is also interesting to see the news about the US and other countries presented abroad. At that time I was impressed by how much more press was given to the situation in the Former Yugoslavia than it was in the U.S...

Nicole,

You are very impressive! Your travels and experiences really show how global your attitudes and thoughts are! I hope my daughter one day will develop the global attitudes and thoughts you have shown in this board. You seem to embrace differences and diversity. You are so objective about many things. May I ask what your occupation is?

You are an asset to this board.

I really need to check the boards more often. Quick comments to several of you.

Kurt - While I am sure you could be trusted on some issues, I would rather hear about you leaving law to be a history teacher. I think teaching is an honorable profession like law can be, but as a fairly new attorney I would like to hear about your decision to look elsewhere.

Mclarke - I am curious about what Europeans told your daughter about the "american spirit." I second your comments about Nichole. It is important to see the world from someone else's perspective. For those of us who have not traveled as extensively as Nichole, her experiences indirectly broaden our horizons.

mclarke. I don't really have a speecific occupation. I am 27, so I have only been out in the work world for about five years. I have taught english, and done compliance work in a bank (Chile), and for the last two years worked as a social worker/job developer at a refugee resettlement agency, and taught Spanish at night.

Right now I working as a marketing assistant at an accounting firm in L.A. while I study for the GRE and try to figure out what to be when I grow up.

All I really want to do is keep traveling though..

I am sure your daughter is well on her way. When you describe what she is doing over in Spain, we catch a glimpse of an adventurer. She seems to have really gotten out there, met people and made friends. That's what it is all about.


Sheba, I love your write-ins on the ballot!

Hi Mclarcke,
I am sorry that your daughter is being caught in the middle of the storm. The reason why we (Spaniars/European) are laughing about the political situation in USA is because for many years we have seen all the American movies about how great is the American System, we have been hearing for years how democratic is America, the propaganda that American send to Europe is "AMERICA HAS THE BEST POLITICAL SYSTEM". Honestly, Europeans get a little bit sick of all tha "American Wonders". Now, let me tell you how nice is when we meet an American and we realized how great he/she is and that he/she doesn't have anything to do with what his/her goverment send to Europe. It is sad but the American goverments are the biggest responsibles for the hatred that some countries feel for America. I argue with my Spaniards friends becuase they don't believe that America is a great country where you get the chance to live very well, they still think that America is the country that bombs other countries, kill (econimically speaking) to the weakest countries, takes advantage of South america... I mean, that is exactly what we see in Europe, what would you think about a country if you see all that stuff? You have to come here and see that we are getting the wrong information.
Besos

Nuria,

My daughter just turned 20 and all her growing up years, she has never been interested in politics. This recent U.S. political drama is her first experience to be involved to discuss about U.S. politics. This is her first time to live abroad and suddently her new environment involves her in politics. Her Spain experience is opening to horizons and expereince new things like "politics".

Welcome back to this wonderful forum.

Yes Mclarck, I think I know how she feels, sometimes when you go to a foreigner country you are a little bit like an embassor and everybody ask you questions and you get involved in things that you might not want to. But I am sure that she has friends that like her and think she is great and that is something very good because then they will associate being american with being a nice person. I wish that we could make exchanges like students do and spend some time in a different country so we could have the experience of other cultures, people, customs... then we won't be as silly when we make statements about Americans are... French are... English are... sometimes I hear things like: How the spaniards were so cruel and killed so many indians? And I don't have the answer, that was 500 years ago and I didn't know them, but since I am Spaniard is like if I were "responsible" somehow and they think that I should now.
Anyway, I hope your daughter is having a good time there, are you planning on visiting her soon?
Besos

Hello and welcome back, Nuria.

Speaking as an American, I happen to think we do have the best political system in the world. Its not perfect, and this current mess is showing places where some changes might be in order. But, its served us well for over two hundred years, and if I may say so, I am proud of the accomplishments our system has made. In general, we Americans like our politics messy. Things sure are up in the air down in Florida. The way I see it, if the politicians keep arguing with each other, then they'll leave the rest of us alone to live our lives.

What is noteworthy about we Americans is that only about 50% of those eligible actually vote! As far as I know a higher percentage of europeans typically vote in their national elections.
Just think : our new president will have been selected by only 25% of the populace.

I hope that those Americans overseas who sent in absentee ballots were lucky enough to have the foreign post offices clearly postmark them as the Democrats are trying to get as many votes from overseas thrown out as possible (since they think that those ballots might favor Bush).

The on-going legal battles between the opposing armies of high paid lawyers are unique to our American system. Also the many lawsuits being filed prove to the world that we are a very litigious society.

All in all, we do have a good system of government but I don't gloat that we have the best of all.

Nuria
My daughter is enjoying her Spain experience. She has spent weekends at her Spanish friend's farm; weekends at the mountains; does yoga with them. Yes, Nuria, she also in a way acts an "ambassador". She teaches English to two young Spanish children whose ages are 7 and 11 and for these children it is their first contact with a black american. With regards to the politics incident, that is past and forgotten. I will be in Spain from Dec. 29-Jan. 14. Will you still be there? My daughter and I would like to meet with you for lunch or dinner. I will be in the Altamirano area in Madrid from Dec. 29-Jan 2.

Hi mclarke,
No, I won't be there I am only going for 3 days, actually I am leaving in 1 hour (I am very nervous) but it would be awesome to meet you and your daughter. I hope you have fun!

When will the Lib concede?

As a supposed answer to your question,, I say "Not anytime soon" and that goes for Gov. Bush as well. The last time I posted here (11/21), I wasn't too concerned about the goings on. I am changing my mind now. Its gotten to the Supreme Court, and it is sure that it won't stop there. I think there is a high likelihood that the vote could end up in the U.S. congress. More lawsuits are promised by Vice-Pres. Gore. Forget what they're all saying; this isn't about anything but WINNING. So far this thread has been refeshingly non-partisan, but I think one of them should concede, and it should be Gore. Any other opinions out there?....

sure, here's an opinion. The person who wins the popular vote, and the person who was most penalized by the archaic and confusing voting machines in Florida should be the one to concede to the rich, son of a president who wants to strong arm his way into office, caudillo style, with henchmen and organized protesters and daddy's old war horses? Um, don't think so!! Either they should throw out the Florida vote or recount the whole damn thing, with a uniform standard, and do it right. Meantime, the Supreme Court might lend some authority to this whole debacle!

The most difficult part of this whole debate is credibility. Neither party is following a "neutral" principle to a conclusion. Each side is purely result-oriented.

As for who should concede, the point at which it could be done honorably and with dignity has long since passed for either of them. The goal of any election is to ensure that the will of the people is heard and followed. This election has clearly uncovered several long-existing problems in determining the will of the people. "How much of a chad constitutes a vote?" I don't know.

The electoral college/popular vote issue shows the true extent of hypocrisy. Each party has advanced both positions depending on the current perception of which candidate would win which.

I disagree with anyone who wishes to follow the popular vote and not the electoral college. First, it would be changing the rules in the middle of this election. More importantly, the U.S. is a republic, not a pure democracy. The electoral college ensures that every state has a say in who the president will be. If it was determined by popular votes, significant portions of the country would be irrelevant. I submit that if a candidate only ran ads and visited major population centers, he could win the popular vote. That would effectively disenfranchise most voters.

Who will win? Who cares at this point? I don't think much will get done in the next 2-4 years.

Just some humble opinions...

I have decided to hold my tounge on this matter. I caused an uproar with my previous election related posting, so I will refrain from posting on this divisive topic. In the words of Rodney King and MissMadrid, " Why can't we all just get along?". In order to be more germane to the site, why don't we discuss the details of the Spainsh electoral system? Lets save the politcal polemics for other sites.

Cantankerously,

Shawn

RJF,

Unfortunately here in the US we have wat's called a "constitution"... Regardless of what you think of the electoral system, it is there and it is the law. Neither A "confusing ballot" nor anything else is a cause for ignoring the law. If someone has a arguement with the electoral college, they need to take it up with congress. Like it or not, George W. Bush is the winner of this election verified by an ititial count and then a law required re-count.

Anyway, this is my spcheal and that's that!

I hear Madrid is beautiful this time of year.

You mean spiel (yiddish). Yes, we have laws, and Bush's team chose to derride the judiciary branch when they interpreted the law in Gore's favor. Time for Bush to get off his high Texan horse and call for a full state, hand recount, and agree to abide by the results. But noooo, he might... LOSE to a full, fair count. Much better to say, whatever the machine produces as long as it is in his favor applies! THis is a nasty, gutter political battle, and all calls to respect the Laws of the Land go contested by the other camp according to what they want to happen. That's why it's not a bad thing to have the Supreme Court get into the mix. They are the group must likely to study the law and apply it well, though too many of them are Papa Bush's friends for my taste...!

PS to Shawn: does getting along mean we can never discuss things that push our buttons? No one compels you to respond to something in General Chatter (that's why MM created the forum: for non-Spain related things on our mind!). Sheesh, it is just politics: precisely. People in Spain used to talk politics all day and night, among friends, in bars etc. Now what is the hot topic: el ultimo telefono mobil or smtg? Now turn on your TV because you are about to see Bush certified the winner by that neutral, objective, law upholding secretary of state in florida who just happens to be... co-chair of the statewide committee to elect Bush president.

RGF,

I take it that you are just as opposed to Attorney General Butterworth being as involved as Harris since Butterwoth is Gore's Florida co-chair? Are you concerned about not all the overseas votes counting?

Sorry I started this...

RGF, its obvious who you want to win this election. However, neither side is clean in Florida, both have resorted to crass political manuevering, character-assasination, frivilous lawsuits and intimidation in attempts to win at any cost. Gore has conducted himself like the political pit bull we all knew he was, and Bush has matched him blow for blow. No one has any moral high ground in this mess. Whomever "wins" will be a lame duck the moment he steps into office. The only winners are the battalions of out of state lawyers who are racking up massive fees for their "services".

Of course I am concerned about ALL the dirty politics, and want all legitimately cast votes to count, and be counted! I do draw the line, though, on saying that all military votes should count even if the voters are not registered, did not request an absentee ballot, etc. Please. But I am not thrilled about dimple divining, either. I would have liked to see a whole Florida hand count with a uniform standard (and it seems to me that the chad should have at least one corner off to signal the voter did something to it!). how did it come down to a few hundred votes and dimples! anyway, happy t-giving weekend to all, and whomever is prez will be so crippled he might just as well look into retirement now.

RGF-- We can only hope!

P.S. It was 70 in Sevilla yesterday!

Kurt: No need to apologize. I have enjoyed the discussion and everyone's opinion! Oh to be in Sevilla though. . . .

I don't know if you care to hear about it, but yesterday there were general elections in Romania too. Unfortunately the people voted for the left side of the political pie and some really crazy nationalist (in fact more than nationalist, anti-jew and rasist and so on) took almost 30% from our Parlament. So I am so sad and perhaps I am really ashamed of my conationals. I think pissed off is the most appropiate term. I still don't belive it though...

rgf - my feelings entirely! At this point, neither party nor candidate is doing much to gain respect from anyone. Sorry guys, but when a candidate wins the popular vote that candidate should win the presidency. As we are all too painfully aware, the electoral college was instituted in the days of a white male landowner = a vote. We no longer in that position - thank God - 'thou I do believe the current govenor of Texas would love to take us back ....

This drawn-out exercise shows just how much the electoral college should be eliminated. One registered person - one vote = vote SHOULD count.

Solution to the current nonsense - why not pull another FDR and keep Clinton in for a third term?

I am a naturalized citizen. I found voting in the U.S. so relaxing without fear that I could be shot. I come from a country that during election year especially for presidency, my country or origin would experienced the highest death rate for that year! When I was a recent U.S. citizen, I did not understand the importance of the electoral college. In this country it does not mean when presidential candidate gets most of the popular votes, it really does not represent the will of the 50 states. For example, New York and California has more voters than West Virginia, Virginia, North/South Carolina combined. If we depend on the popular votes, the states with smaller population would be totally ignored! The candidates would only concentrate on the states that could give them the most popular votes and probably would not even campaign in West Virginia. Did either Bush or Gore campaign in Alaska or Hawaii to get their votes? I believe not because the number of electoral votes is irrelevant.What prevents bloodshed during presidential vote is the presence of the electoral college. In my country of origin, the popular votes is the one that determines who wins the presidential election. As I told my daughter who is in Spain, despite the presence of heightened bipartisan, there is no need to call on the National guard to protect peace and order. Can you imagine this situation occuring in some other countries -- the soldiers would be out to stop violence. In my country of origin, there is this saying from old folks during election that "Politicians are the same dogs with differenct collars." Viva U.S.A.!

I understand what you are saying but the crux and heart of the issue is "It doesn't matter" - one man - one vote is what the basis of democracy is about. Because a candidate does or does not go to a smaller populated state to campaign mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (sorry to use caps but can't figure out how to bold certain words). Individual states best serve their interests via their US representatives and senators - i.e. some above-board and some back-handed politicing.

Believe me, the smaller states are heard. I come from one. All the states elect senators and reps based on what they feel that senator or rep can do for the particular state (or area of the state) - this is where state interests are served .... not by an electoral college.

Myth : Eliminating the Electoral College would eliminate the current politcal confusion.

Fact: The mess would be multiplied by a factor of 20. We would be recounting every precinct in every state of the union. One corrupt ( e.g. Tammeny Hall, Richard Daley) political machine in just one city could alter the outcome of the entire nation. The current system would require a conserted currupt effort accross the nation to guarantee an outcome. The 100,000 plus undercounted ballots in Cook County alone could be treasure chest for a crafty politician with superior operatives. There are nearly a million uncounted ballots nations wide that will never be counted, but these ballots are in states where the outcome is clearer than in Florida.

Myth: The United States is a democracy.

Fact : The USA was established as a republic, the capricious whims of the masses are blunted by cooler heads who represent our long term interests. The electoral college is one element of the founding fathers' design.

Myth: People elect the president.

Fact: States elect the president. The name of the nation ( The United STATES) should make it abundantly clear that power flows from states to Washington, not the converse. The Constitution decrees that sparsely poulated Wyoming gets 2 senators, an equal sum that California enjoys. That the sole member of the House of Representatives from Wyoming has a district with 475,000 people, whereas, a California member of the House reprsents 850,000. Smaller states benefit from disproportionate representation at all levels of government, the executive is no different. Is this fair? That is an answer for Solomon, the important point is that it is law. A remedy would require significant amending of the Constitution, an unlikely event.

I did not vote for either leading candidate, but I fear now that this bitter election will provoke knee-jerk legislation that will cause greater harm than the original difunction. I remember vividly during the O.J. trial that many began to campaign for changes in criminal law that would permit guilty verdicts with less than unannimity. Fortunatley, this passion subsided. The O.J. case was no more representative of the judicial system, than this presidential election is of the electoral sytem - they are both anomalies. I take solace in the aftermath of the O.J. trial as the pleas for radical systemic changes were fleeting. The upshot from the most recent national soap opera, I hope, will be similar- no change.

Combative in L.A.


[This message has been edited by Shawn (edited 11-28-2000).]

Well put Shawn. In fact, I recall hearing about 1.2 million absentee ballots in California that had not been counted. It would not have been enough for Dubya to win CA, but it could have turned the popular vote.

It is not enough for small states to have a say via members of Congress. They need to have a say for the executive too.

I am not sure who would be a better president or who should be president. But I do enjoy the fact that this controversy is providing everyone with a great civics lesson. Hopefully, it will make people better citizens.

I don't know if it's appropriate to say this but here you have it.

A recent survey made in Holland about who the Dutch people would want to win in the US elections said that 80% prefered Gore, 15% Nader and only 5% Bush. I think that if this survey had been made in Spain the results would have been more or less the same.

What do you think about it? Why are Dutch (and EC by extent)people so pro-Gore or anti-Bush?

[This message has been edited by Castiza (edited 11-28-2000).]

I think to other developed countries, issues of health care and education are basic. To them it is absolutely fundamental that those needs be taken care of, and that they are at times more important than other issues.

From what I have seen public education in europe is far superior to that in the U.S., up to university level, where it appears to be about the same, and some say better at graduate levels, here. There is a sad, sad disparity in the quality of education and vocational training in our system (this is true of both poor urban and rural areas, of course). Hopefully that will change. It is unwise to under-utilize the brain power of so many potentially contributing members of society...

I had dinner with a French friend the other night, and he admitted that he was baffled that we Americans are so reticent regarding health care for everyone. Having worked in the inner-city, I can attest to the unbelievably substandard quality of health care given to poor Americans - a recent report rated it parralel to the poorer African countries. For wealthy Americans, it was among the best in the world. Disparities likle that are a little shocking to other developed countries. I think sometimes, people outside the States are more aware of how our systems work or fail than our own citizens. We, like many countries, have alot of illusions about ourselves, and that, coupled with the fact that the Average American isn't that interested in the news, etc, means we tend to vote more on these illusions of what we think is really going on that on real investigation and information.

Also, did you read that we were determined to big the worst of the worlds polluters at the latest conference in Hague. There is no way to think that in that respect we can believe oursleves to be isolated. Our envornmental practices affect the lives of millions of other people (as theirs do ours).
[a side note on environment : There is a hole in the ozone layer over Santiago, Chile. Believe me, you could tell. I never sunburn, but there I couldn't be out even in cooler weather w/o sunscreen for more than 15 minutes without getting crispy red due to the lack of ozone filtering. Same problem in Australia). can't get away from the fact that we are all connected, whether we like it or not.]

So I would imagine, those issues speak to european countries, because they are more along the lines of current thinking and values there.

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 11-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 11-28-2000).]

This is interesting, Castiza!
I agree with Nicole. I think her points are on target.
I think the Dutch are not so much pro-Gore as they are pro-Democrats. Socialism is a nasty word in the US, but it describes Europe - Holland in particular - fairly well. The Democratic party is much more socialistic than the Republican. I believe the Democratic platform is more appealing to the Dutch because it's more similar to what they want/have. (Actually, the Dutch would probably consider the US Democrats still too conservative!) I think you're right about the rest of Europe, too, for the same reason. Also, Bush, regardless of whether it's true or not, stands for what so many non-Americans hate about the US - filthy rich capitalists raking in all the money for themselves without a thought for the welfare of the working classes. I think many people over-simplify this view, but it's definitely out there. And the Europeans don't bat an eye about scandals. Nothing Clinton or his people have done will matter to them. (Apparently Felipe Gonzalez had an active extramarital thing going on that seemed to bother no one in Spain.)

There is no doubt that the average European secondary school student outperforms his/her American counterpart. European educational models are far more austere than those here in the States. In Germany middle school aged student are tested to determine wich academic course the pupils will follow- the Gymnasium, or the vocational path. That is to say that the academicly capable student is sifted from the trade school student at a young age. Consequently, the curriculum for the university bound student is more rigorous than our own.
The United States is unwilling to except an educational system that leaves less gifted students with a predetermined career. Who does better on nearly every standardized measurement of academic skill? The answer is obvious, but can this nation swallow the grim reality that lower income, disproportionately minority citizens would have career doors open to them in the trades, but not to the professional pursuits? Clearly, the university students would be better prepared for the university demands, and the number of students seeking remedial instruction in the universities would be erased. Likewise, many of our nonacademic minded classmates would receive practical career instruction that would help them avoid the plight of poverty in exchange for a skilled trade.
The United States loves to perpetuates the egalitarian ideal that everyone should have equal educational opportunities. If we are willing to admit that we all possess different talents and abilities, then we can adopt the European model. In the meantime if you compare apples with apples, you will see that American students who undertake a rigorous high school curriculum( Calculus, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, etc.) meaure favorably with our European friends. The problem is that only a small percentage of our students undertake the demands of this path of study. Many of our school districts design a curriculum that is crafted in order not to leave the less bright behind while reatarding the growth of our talented pupils.
If you wish to see European results, then we must be capable of radical systemic changes that tear asunder the egaltarian myths in exchange for an educational system that dosen't pull the weak up, but rather propels everyone according to their talents.

Longing for " What is the best way to get from Barajas to the Puerta del Sol?"

Yeah. it would be interesting to find a unique way of taking the best of both worlds.

One thing that i personally prefer is the flexibility in our educational system. I know in France it was virtually impossible to change career tracks once you were in one. What I would love see here though is the sense of honor in what one does, regardless of whether or not one goes to college.

I was listening to this rap a few years ago, and it said "Do you wanna go to college, or do you wanna be garbage." I thought it was cool that this person was using music to promote education but felt that it also represented a larger feeling that if you aren't "white collar"/wealthy, you don't count.

I was one of those lucky ones that got a good education in the college-prep track at a public high school though. I noticed that those not in college prep not only did not receive much of an education, but also left without a trade, skill or preparation for a next step (and yes there was an unfortunate and VERY marked socio-economic difference in the people in the two tracks). I think some of that is changing, with schools like Devry, that actually have a really good international reputation, but not enough yet.

Nonetheless, how do you balance that freedom to study literature, and end up working successfully in Marketing or the travel industry if you want, that we have here (particularly useful to indecisive folk like me), with a real sense of skill and trade that prepares our younger compatriots to feel proud in whatever they do? Interesting question.

Good points, Diana. As European living in the US, it was a fascinating experience to observe the entire presidential campaign. And I must say, I am very happy that I live in Massachusetts where people are predominantly Democrat. The Republican party is just so far from anything I can relate to as a European, it would have been a culture shock to live in a heavily Republican Southern state. Their approach to social policy, distribution of wealth etc. is extremely different from Europe. Take, for example, the Bush proposal for a substantial tax return to the wealthiest 1 % of the Americans in a time where still a substantial part of the population is without health care. It seems that a huge part of the US population does not regard this issue as scandalous, but agrees with his idea of "return the money to the people who payed the bills", and believes in the primary responsibility of the individual for his or her own fate.
Without wanting to start a discussion on this point, I just want to state that there are true differences in mentality. I know many Europeans here and have not found a single one who was not convinced that Gore is far the better man for the job and Bush is not up to it. Most notably, we all agreed on our evaluation that Gore was far better than Bush in the presidential debates. I was baffled when I heard the comments on TV after the debates and many commentators' positive assessment of Bush's performance. It is not only a question of subject-matter, but also of personal presentation. People seem to like his "ordinary guy from Texas with the Cowboy hat" approach, and despise Gore's "lecturing" style.
I also agree with Diana's assessment of the European attitude vis-a-vis Clinton. The vast majority of Europeans regarded the entire Lewinsky affair as ridiculous and a waste of money and resources, hence the Bush campaign's claim of "restoring integrity to the White House" also seems weired to them.

After the election mess in Florida, with all the name calling and yelling, I have a solution. I'd like to offer Florida back to Spain. Somebody over there please contact Juan Carlos I and tell me what he thinks. Thank You.

i agree, kurt!

it's interesting that people still have the association with the republican party that they are rich white slobs that want all the money...

in 1998 rush limbaugh (everyone's fav) released a study that looked into the family socio-economic backgrounds of republican and demcratic politicians that revealed that democratic politicians generally (and overall) came from more money than the republican politicians.... with the kennedy's leading the pack.

in europe i love the socialistic approach to government... in the usa i dislike it very much... europeans are more suitable for socialism because in general they seem to be less selfish, where they seemingly actually care more about those with less. in the usa i don't get the same feeling... and yeah, i agree that the democrats here in the usa are considered conservative in europe..

I thought it was already a done deal that the Queen resumes power and over all states, conmmonwealths and other territories?

I heard the Queen revoked our Independence! Apparently, she wants us to improve our pronunciation.

Well, seriously now--

I really must check this board more often, as some interesting thoughts have been floated. I'll respond to a couple of them.

First, the idea that Europeans like Al Gore more than George W. Bush. They probably agree with his policy proposals more than him personally. Actually, I find myself in more agreement with Gore's policies than Bush's. But I voted for Bush. Gore strikes me as deeply insecure with his constant need to "re-invent" himself and his almost pathological need to embellish and puff up his record. He has no central identity. Let's face it- a sitiing vice-president, whose administration oversaw eight years of unprecendented prosperity should have steam-rolled a bumbler like W. Europeans just don't know Gore like we in the US do.

Actually, that's all I've got time for now. I'll check back later to enlighten you all about my thoughts on American and European education.

Peace to all...

real_megia, I challenge you to link to that so-called "study." Bollocks, I say.

Looks like I'll be in Spain while the final results are established. It may not be pretty, but it's the best system so far . . .

markb i challenge you (feciciously) to link to anything you say on this board.

if that study does not appear in either one of rush limbaugh's books then i daresay that nobody could link to any evidence of it at all... i merely state what i heard (read - in newsweek 3 years ago while having the oil changed in my car...) i simply remember it because it shocked me. (by the way, the study included attendance to ivy league schools, democratic politicians coming out ahead...)

kurt, i agree with your position on gore's constant re-definition of self... i suppose everyone goes through an 'identity crisis,' but c'mon..!

To the non-U.S. members of the Board, what do you think about the election being resolved in the courts?

With an election that close and some grounds for suspicions of irregularities, it seems the normal course to undertake a judicial review.
Kurt, I do not think this preference for Gore of Europeans just has to do with the fact that we do not know him well enough. Most of my European friends here in the US followed the entire campaign more closely than many US citizens did and some of them live here for several decades already. Many were not enthusiastic about Gore either, but still preferred him to Bush. I DO think that there is something about Bush's behavior that appeals more to Americans than to Europeans, as was the case with Ronald Reagan, too.

Ronald Reagan was lucky, Connie. He faced two of the least impressive democrats of modern times: Jimmy Carter, a good man who supported unsound policies, and Walter Mondale, who was just, well, unsound. Its interesting that Carter, who by any objective criteria was a weak president, has become the most impressive ex-president of modern times. But lets not be too hard on Ronald Reagan, love him or hate him, he put together a successful strategy to end Cold War, and we are all better off for that (except maybe the ex-workers at Torrejon Air Base).

Well, let's face it. We vote on charm - not issues. People wanted to have a reason to vote for Bush, because he is darn good at seeming to be sincere. I think if we found out that Gore spent the vice presidency, as Bush did his governorship, in the gym and playing video games, his opponents would have been screaming bloody murder.

Bush looks like a nice guy to go out and have a beer with, so the average American feels he or she can trust them. Most don't do a whole lot of investigation into the real political history of a candidate. Actually, that would be difficult with Bush, because he doesn't have much of one..

There is also something really unattractive about Gore's desperation though.

That said, you would have to be pretty ambitious to run for that office, and I attribute some of that desperation to a really strong desire to try to achieve certain things - that won't happen with someone else in office.

Nonetheless, I think agreeing with Gore's policies and then voting for Bush is ensuring that the policies you support will not come about. I am not thrilled with either one of them, but Bush particularly seems empty to me. He is what you fill him up with, no strong conviction or values. I think therefore will be even more vulnerable to the folks that bankrolled him.

I have to go with Connie though. Often people outside the US are far better informed than the average American voter... We just typically aren't interested in that stuff.

The reason most Americans are not that pre-occupied with politics is that the U.S. political systems is so stable. For example, Congress and Senate will always be there no matter who will be the president. We do not wake up to find out Congress has been abolished. Unlike other countries, you wake up to read Parliament has been dissovled. The three branches of the government: legislative, executive and judiciary watch each other for possible abuses. Just look at the process of selecting the president for the president. There is a check and balance going on. Again, most American are not worried whether Gore or Bush becomes president for the reason it is basically the cabinet member who make the decisions. Why do think Reagan accomplished more things than Carter? Reagan left everyhting for the cabinet to make decisions; while Carter controlled everything because he is a genius!

I have to say that the stereotyping of Republicans as the wealthy in this country is ludicrous. Last time I checked, I still can't find my BMW in the garage. Maybe it's hiding behind my wife's huge Saturn. If you've seen my luxury car and house in the hills, please let me know.

I'm sure there's not a democrat in the country that wouldn't love for that misconception to continue to be perpetuated. The fact of the matter is, there are the "elite" (read: rich) on both sides of the fence. The Green Party has them too. It would seem that the rich on the GOP side of the fence are just a little more wary about giving handouts to others. Philanthropy is a good thing, but wasteful dish-outs to groups who may not value being industrious is dangerous. I'm not interested in creating a society of couch potatoes who only get off the couch when the pizza man shows up with free pizza.

Connie-have you done the real math on Bush's tax plan, or did you take Gore's (read: cyborg relations) word for it. If everyone gets a strict percentage tax-cut, say 5%, of course those making $500,000 per year would get a "bigger" tax cut than he who makes $50,000. If you're paying taxes of $185,000, your tax return of $25,000 would equal the return of 10 people making $50,000 each year. Overall, the return to those more wealthy will be, dollars and cents-wise, more than those less wealthy.

Nevertheless, unlike Gore's plan, Bush's seems to be an unbiased, fair plan based solely on one factor: percentage. I don't want Gore telling me that since I make a certain amount of money, I should have to forego the pleasure of seeing some of that back in my pocket. Do I drive the freeways more? Do my kids go to MORE public school? Do I go to more NEA-supported art exhibitions (of dung-defaced religious figures )? What am I doing that justifies Gore deciding I need to pay more taxes (or at least not get pack the same percentage as everyone else)? Did I not work as hard for my salary than the guy who's making $8.00/hour at the car wash? Is that Al Gore's call?

Geez, I don't want to sound like an elitist, but I believe that those who have worked hard to get where they're at should be allowed to do what they will with the fruits of their labors. The only exceptions are those who have worked hard to circumvent the law to get where they are. They should have their assets seized and then they can live off my tax money in the big house...without TV and workout privileges, though!

P.S. As mentioned, the fact that Gore is even in this tight of a contest proves his ineffectiveness and inability to inspire confidence in the American people...in the face of our most prosperous eight-year period in history . What a dolt!

woah. This got really partisan rather quickly. I was kind of avoiding this thread (since I feel a little guilty about the other two that I seemed to help get out of hand).

Shouldn't we somehow get back to the topic of espana?

(Actually poor whites make up a huge chunk of Republican voters)


Oh whatever. we are really an opinionated bunch, aren't we?!

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 12-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 12-05-2000).]

I think Nicole painted a perfect picture of Bush with her words "He is what you fill him up with, no strong conviction or values. I think therefore will be even more vulnerable to the folks that bankrolled him." That said, because I am of the firm belief the US is not unto itself in the world and no longer can/should we act as if we were the 'great power' - a huge priority change is in order. Europe has a far more concerned and humane attitude than we as a country seem to exhibit. Whether ist free trade or NAFTA - noone can go along saying me-me-me. There's too many holes in the ozone layer kids, and too many hungry and sick people in the world to have the freedom to cry "not our responsiblity" - and, in my mind - that typifies George W.

Sorry for spouting off - have stayed away from this thread for a reason ....

CaliBasco, no reason to get upset. I was not contending that all Republicans are wealthy and Democrats are less wealthy. I just wanted to point to the differences between the American and European mentality.
In Western Europe, we think that social redistribution is an important function of government and we consider fiscal progression good and just because we think the financial capability is the decisive factor in determining the contribution everyone owes to the community. It is not the thought of how much you make use of the state services but the sense of a solidarity community. Even if my kids do not go to more public schools, I am ready to pay more taxes to ensure that also persons in poor neighborhoods get a good education. And I have my problems in understanding why a budget surplus has to lead to tax returns while a substantial amount of people has no health ensurance, and there are a lot of other useful things how the money could be invested. But it is the choice of the citizens of this country, I just observe that the campaign would have been quite different in Europe.
I do not want to say that people in this country do not care about the poor, there is a lot of private charity work which is very impressive, but people do not want the government to be involved too much, and we Europeans DO want the government to be involved in that sector.
Here in the US, the focus lies on the responsibility of the individual in the first place, and personal freedom. The domestic policies pursued by the Republican party are obviously supported by a majority of voters.

Not to be a cynic, but I was much more concerned about the results of my state's election than the Presidential election.

I don't believe the president is worthless, but whoever said it above (I forget, sorry) was right, the power does flow from the states to the federal gov.

This election is a joke. The fact that Bush couldn't clearly swing his brother's state is a joke. That Gore is throwing every legal angle he can is a joke. I just hope that because of this fiasco the President will have to rise above it and be truly dynamic and effective.

Yeah, the whole situation is pretty hopeless. I only hope that it may produce some changes towards a more efficient voting system.

I had a heck of a time getting registered in CA, and the voting place was surprisingly informal and a bit disorganized...

Hello Nicole--
A while back you commented that 'agreeing with Gore's policies and then voting for Bush will ensure that those policies will not come to pass." That's true. While I agreed with some (not all) of Gore's positions, I did not feel that he was the "far better" man for the job, as an earlier poster said, and listed my reasons for thinking that. Now, the fact is that No candiadtes campaign promises come to pass. they are always subjected to compromise when the horse-trading begins on Capitol Hill. The GOP has a razor-thin majority in the House, and the senate is 50-50. This should be interesting.

As Always....Peace to all.

did any of you all see the infamous ballot in question from ?broward? county in florida?? i am refering to the absentee ballot that 'so many americans' had trouble filling out...

it was not difficult to read at all... on NPR (nat'l public radio) they chuckled about a study that a kindergarten teacher did with her class... she gave them all the ballot and had them fill it out.. not ONE child got it wrong. they all voted for whom they wanted and got it right.

on the same NPR broadcast a lady called in from florida who is a PhD in psycology and she said,'i'm a doctor of psycology and i'm no dummy and i couldn't figure out that ballot!' she was pretty angry... he he he... i think that is so funny.. why does it seem like something is wrong there?

hey gore, it was 'the will of the people' that elected those judges that don't favour you. funny how YOU are not 'the people' unless you favour the democratic party. hmmmmm... and i've been left in the past... maybe i'll go further right.

Nicole! How can you say that "Bush is whatever you fill him up with" while ignoring the fact that Gore has changed his core directives no less than six times...all since the campaign began? How about his running mate? Lieberman, a "devout Jew" was excommunicated for advocating partial-birth abortions. I'm not sure how ANY person can reconcile their belief in God, Yahweh or Allah or whoever and advocate this dispicable practice.

And Puna, do you believe "out of hat" what was posted? If there's a candidate that stuck to his guns, it was Nader! (probably since he isn't bought and paid for). Anyway...I think that Bush has more conviction than Gore, but they both are slaves to their platforms. That's the sad state of affairs in the U.S.

I like the way that coalition governments seem to get things done in other countries. I know that in Spain you have a number of parties who are represented in the "cortes". When they get together on issues, they can be heard. Even though the PP is in control with Aznar, the parliament is multipartisan (a word we don't know in the U.S.!) We don't have that here, and so we get gridlock.

Nicole, you're right...we are an opinionated bunch...I'm just as guilty as everyone else! At least I mentioned Spain in this post, though

Good for you Calibasco! getting us back on track!

Gore changing his campaign seemed a transparantly desperate desire to win, and Bush just seems empty to me. I, personally, do not get the impression that he is great thinker or has any strong feelings about anything. Sorry, that is just my take...

I agree about the mulipartisan governments in other countries. I don't think that either party in our system is really able to go all across the board and make everyone happy. I am tired of lame duck congresses. Having a true multi-party system would be a noce change of pace and a better representation of the "will of the people" so to speak.

I am pretty burnt out on the whole deal, frankly, and would gladly hop on the first plane to Spain to get away from the whole mess. Now if only someone would send ME a round trip ticket for my birthday...

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 12-06-2000).]

Amen, Nicole...I say we throw them both in a room and get McCain vs. Bradley in for Election 2000 round two!

I want out for a while too! I was looking around Amazon.com for tickets to add to my wish list...no luck yet...

that would be a much more interesting match, wouldn't it?

Check out Air France. they are still having good deals for travel through MArch 31st - aprox $500/600 to Madrid or BArcelona.


[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 12-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited 12-06-2000).]

TICKETS ANYONE!?! How about JFK to Madrid..$165.00!!! if you join Air Courier Assoc. you can have it !!!....Rev. Mike

Funny about that election thing huh?? As of today the U.S, supreme court is due to Re-rule...GOOD GOD!!....Rev. Mike

When I was in traveling in Spain, mostly everybody was making fun of our
ballot system. When we were in bar in Granada, courtesy of a 65 year old
man, before he paid, he held his paper peseta looking at it from back and
front and then, told my daughter that he is just making sure that the amount
printed on it is correct, just like the U.S. ballot.

Well, I guess our system is worthy of jokes! I would not, however, recommend that the US switch over to the system I saw used in Spain! Although I (as a foreigner) couldn't vote (well, I did once, but that's another story), I always made sure my Spanish husband did. The voting area had a big table filled with mountains of small papers, one for each party or candidate. You were to take papers for those you wanted to vote for, and put them in a box. Where we lived, you could do this secretly only if you took one of each and every paper (there may have been some 20 different ones), went into a curtained off area, and placed only those you were voting for into the box. The rest, I guess, you would dispose of later.

Most people, however, just took the papers they needed, and there was no secrecy involved. I was told that in certain places (Pais Vasco was specifically mentioned) you are not given the option of going behind a curtain, and people watch to make sure you take the "right" ones.

This system may have changed, but as recently as 5 or 6 years ago I watched it happen.