Survey posted 2000-11-08 16:05 by Andy Selle.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Well i am too young by 3 weeks. Second of all the united states is not a democracy it is a constitutional republic. The U.S was not considered a democracy until FDR was elected (that evil evil man that ruined this country). well there is ya'lls history and political lesson for today

The United States, while it has a democratic form of government-equality of race, class and creed- has not been a true democracy since the Articles of Confederation, where all bills were directly voted on.
Calling any nation a true democracy is a misnomer, because in a true democracy, the people vote on everything, which is prohibitively difficult in large groups.
However, people use the common term "democracy" to refer to a form of government where the people vote and the ruling powers are elected.

Knight/Rocket's .089 moles of copper forged into discs used for currency.

your not one of those crazy republicains that think be was evil based solely on the fact he was a democrat. He is one of the best presidents we have seen. Why else was he elected for 4 terms.

The New Deal was a good idea at the time. Bringing the nation back to full employment required a large increase in aggregate demand, hence the need for more government spending.

Unfortunately, when "good times" returned after WW2, government spending was not reduced enough (Congress was more interested in getting themselves re-elected than in making good fiscal policy), which is why the past 55 years has been an era of inflation and high taxes.

Yes, there is a good reason FDR won four elections. But there is no good reason for some of his spending programs to have lasted through the past 14 elections.

GO YOUNGINGS!!!! hehe, Im 4 months too young :(

now all we have to do is get rid of the electoral college system....


Ricky Cobb
arcadesdude@hotmail.com

I live in the U.S. but I'm too young to vote (16 and several months). I would have voted Gore though, as I think he is more qualified to run our country, having 24 years of experience (he was busy running for Congress when Bush was driving in Maine that night) on the national scale to Bush's 6 as a Texas governor without much power (the legislature holds most power in Texas, as has been demonstrated in one example by Bush taking credit for legislation that he vetoed but that passed in spite of him). Gore would help keep the economy strong, as Bush's total plans, taxes and spending, amount to hundreds of billions more and are also more likely to be passed in the current Congress than Gore's, clearing the way for a recession to occur. Gore has a better foreign policy than Bush, as has been shown by Bush nearly creating an international crisis by accusing a former Prime Minister of Russia of stealing from the IMF, and Bush's wanting to withdraw from Kosovo, which could mean trouble for the U.S. standing in NATO with our *allies* and for NATO's future. Bush is also not too bright, accusing Al Gore of trying to make Social Security a federal program.

What I'm wondering, though, is how do non-Americans feel about the U.S. election? How do you think that the outcome will affect you and who do you support?

I'm from Australia, and I don't particularly like any of the candidates for the US election. I guess if Clinton had ruined the USA, I'd be excited, and feel passionate about it, but the fact is, he did an excellent job. He got the country out of debt, reduced unemployment, kept inflation down, kept interest rates low and kept the US dollar strong. In the light of all Clinton has done, the candidates all look pretty weak. Sure, Clinton has his faults, but who doesn't?

In Australia, I like our current prime minister John Howard and the treasurer Peter Costello. Unlike a lot of the population, I think the GST is a fairer tax system, and is simpler on businesses. I have no respect for the opposition leader Kim Beazly.

However, I'm not too happy about the current state of the Australian dollar. It's value was intentionally lowered to encourage overseas tourists to spend lots during the Olympics. However, it seems to have got a bit out of control, and doesn't seem to be recovering. At least it's good for the steel and wool industries.

Vasantha Crabb

I beleive the current state of the economy is due to Bill and Al.

i.e., Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan

>>I'm from Australia, and I don't particularly like any of the candidates for the US election. I guess if Clinton had ruined the USA, I'd be excited, and feel passionate about it, but the fact is, he did an excellent job. He got the country out of debt, reduced unemployment, kept inflation down, kept interest rates low and kept the US dollar strong. In the light of all Clinton has done, the candidates all look pretty weak. Sure, Clinton has his faults, but who doesn't?

Hmm. Well I think Al Gore is a pretty strong candidate, with 24 years of experience at it and one of the busiest VP's ever. Bush's plans seem kind of reckless and I think that they would send us into recession. People are kind of taking for granted the great state of our economy and forgetting about how it was when Bush's disproven plans were enacted (Reagan's $5+ trillion in debt).

>>In Australia, I like our current prime minister John Howard and the treasurer Peter Costello. Unlike a lot of the population, I think the GST is a fairer tax system, and is simpler on businesses. I have no respect for the opposition leader Kim Beazly.

What's the GST?

I live in Bosnia. We will have elections in Saturday.
I will vote, however we are far from democracy. We had more democracy when we lived in communist leaded country. It was one party system, but everyone could find a place for them, due to system of several delegates. About 10% of people had some function in economy or political system. The delegate was full time responsible to the voters.

After 1990, system was replaced with multi-party system. People choosed nationalists, because they were opposition, and they frightened each other: "Vote for us or you will be destroyed by other nationality!". Then we had civil war combined with agression from Serbia and Croatia. After the war, our political system is kind of protectorat. If politician does not play as requests international representatives he is withdrawn. And, current nationalist leaders will leave our country on the end of Europe. I hope that we will finally put them down and choose some more normal people that those who put us to war.

However, I have interest in elections in USA. For us, it is very important who will be president. Clinton stopped wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, while old Bush tolerated them. Withdrawall of US forces by young Bush will give chance to nationalists to win again and start the new war. Accept me as refugee in this case!

I ya isto.

>>I live in Bosnia. We will have elections in Saturday.
>>I will vote, however we are far from democracy. We had more democracy when we lived in communist leaded country. It was one party system, but everyone could find a place for them, due to system of several delegates. About 10% of people had some function in economy or political system. The delegate was full time responsible to the voters.

Hmm, that's an interesting point of view. Do you at least think it's moving in the right direction towards democracy though?

>>After 1990, system was replaced with multi-party system. People choosed nationalists, because they were opposition, and they frightened each other: "Vote for us or you will be destroyed by other nationality!". Then we had civil war combined with agression from Serbia and Croatia. After the war, our political system is kind of protectorat. If politician does not play as requests international representatives he is withdrawn. And, current nationalist leaders will leave our country on the end of Europe. I hope that we will finally put them down and choose some more normal people that those who put us to war.

Yeah I don't know what motivates some people to do things like that. Nationalism completely divides people and aside from temporary political gain for a few, much is lost. Hopefully it will begin to cease.

>>However, I have interest in elections in USA. For us, it is very important who will be president. Clinton stopped wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, while old Bush tolerated them. Withdrawall of US forces by young Bush will give chance to nationalists to win again and start the new war. Accept me as refugee in this case!

I don't know about allowing them to win again, because much of the force is from other NATO countries, but I think it will gave nationalists fuel in their causes and be potentially damaging and divisive. It could also jeopardize NATO's standing in the world and the US's with NATO and make it less effective in places like the Balkans. I think that it is pretty reckless for him to want to withdraw the troops and it surprises me how so many people could want him in office. He is pretty isolationist.

I am old enough to vote but I did not register.
I really don't like Gore or Bush.

And to any New Yorkers can you explain why yould vote for Hillary, she waltzes into new york like a self righteous Dr. Quin strumpet and gets elected. I am live in Michigan.


-Samuel Stearley

She won because Lazio spent the whole time trying to bring out the anti-Hillary vote, and that's pretty much all he got (which is high but not enough for election). He came across to many as very negative and his unfavorable ratings matched hers. It kind of ticked me off that she just came in here instead of running in Illinois or Arkansas but I probably would have voted for her if I was 18 because control of the senate is so close that it could come down to one or two seats and her positions on issues are closer to mine than his are. New York is a highly democratic state, as shown by Gore's 25 point lead here, and I think it says something that while Gore won by 25 she only won by 10. One other thing about her, though: others say she'll run for President in 2004 or whatever but I think that this is highly unlikely due to the fact that she has such high unfavorability ratings. Unless something changes, I think she would have no chance becoming President. Al Gore running evenly with Bush nationally and up 25 in New York, and Hillary running against a Newt Gingrich buddy and only up by 10 says something about this; she would be very far away from the 270 electoral votes that she would need.

I guess what I'm sort of alluding to is that elections rarely focus on just one issue and New York's positions on things are closer to Hillary's than Lazio's on issues other than carpetbagging. Had Lazio portrayed himself in a positive light from the beginning and not been quite so negative I think he would have had a good chance.

> I really don't like Gore or Bush.

Neither do I. Unfortunately, there aren't any other choices (well, not any with a chance of winning).

btw, I would have voted for Bush had I been able to register in time. Doesn't matter, though -- I don't live in Florida.

The thing with Nader is that he refused to admit and target the differences between gore and bush.

The republicans crab about big government and they act like taxes hurt us, but really I would not mind paying a little bit of extra tax if it was for a good service like recycling, which republicans call big government and would want to privatize regardless of cost benefits.

This is more of a local issue though. -And it is not like I own my own house.



-Samuel Stearley

That plus Bush's total plans are hundreds of billions more and much more likely to pass in the current Congress. He shouldn't focus so much on lowering taxes for a few people, WE'RE STILL IN DEBT!!!! He would take away the annual surplus, keep us in debt, and cause recession.

America isn't really a democracy, it is really a combination of a republic and a democracy. We vote for the officials that vote for us, like in a republic. The democracy is just an illusion. They make it look like that we are in control. In the presidential elections, it may seem that we elect the president, but the electorial college does. Each state elects the electors, but the electors can vote their own opinion. Our votes merely suggest what candidates the electoral college votes for. Even though we can label the electors "Bush" and "Gore" electors, it doesn't count. Legally, they can vote for any freakin canidate.

That is all true, but really, the people who decide who the electors will be won't exactly pick someone from the opposing party. They pick people who have been loyal to that party for a while. I can just imagine California giving all of its electoral college votes to Buchanan or Nader... heheh...

-Jacotus

Hence the terms "Democrat" and "Republican"....

Actually, in New Mexico it is a Felony for an elector to vote against their party.

However, no one has been convicted for it yet.

And the same is true in half of the other states. In California, you get a $1000 fine and up to 3 years in jail.

Doubtful that anyone would anyway. They are party faithfuls and being named to it is a big award for them. It is unlikely for many to switch parties and they rarely do.