You’re all missing something here. Bush’s foreign policy platform in '00 was an isolationist one; he claimed to be pretty dead set against leftist exercises such as nation-building and so forth.
He’s certainly changed his tack while in office, but keep in mind that those who voted for Bush were voting for his proposed policies, not the ones we ended up with.
For the record, so was Clinton in 1992 (42.9%) and 1996 (49.2%). I know, I know. Bush 43 won with a minority of the popular vote while Clinton had a plurality both times.
Look, you, as well as others, are free to go head and talk about the technicalities behind your electoral system, and explain away the reasons of why and how a man, although not eligible, got elected as president. That does not make a difference in the way the US is perceived by the rest of the world. It is not incumbent on the people of the world to know the nitty gritty details of the workings of the election system in the US. In the eyes of the people around the world, the US is a democracy with a reliable and strong judiciary. As with any “true” democracy anywhere else, when a country has a robust constitution, and goes through a well defined electoral process to elect its leader, it is but reasonable to assume that a majority of Americans support that leader. If that is not true, and you say that the judiciary is corrupt, that it can interfere with the election results and manipulate them for partisan political advantage, then I am sorry but that only implies then that the US is not a true democracy. I am sorry, and again I do not intend this to sound offensive, but you tell me what impression would be created in the minds of people of the world, of a country (country = people) that has problems of a type, where the electoral process can be hijacked for political mileage, and the controls of the mightiest military machine can be given in the hands of a nincompoop? You tell me!! 
Dude, you misspelled “I was wrong, sorry.”
In what way have you decided that GWB was “not eligible” to become President?
News flash: As we have had an Electoral College for lo these many years, the U.S. is not, strictly speaking, a “true democracy”. There are those who feel that allocating a degree of power to states, even small ones, outweighs the grief caused at rare intervals when the popular and electoral college votes differ. I don’t agree, but the defects of the electoral college system are hardly grounds to go screaming into the night that the U.S. election procedure has suddenly fallen into the hands of corrupt power brokers.
“It is not incumbent on the people of the world to know the nitty gritty details of the workings of the election system in the US.”
If “the people of the world” are going to pontificate on the subject of the election system in the U.S, then yes they do have to be well-informed on the subject.
Sorry for what? I only expressed concurrence on the essence of an article. What should I be sorry for and why?
It is not I who claimed that. It was only a derivation from what I have been given to understand given some of the posts in this thread, that although Gore was apparently the “actual” elected president, the Supreme Court of the US intervened and ruled in favour of GWB based on some technicalities of the “electoral” college. What becomes apparent is the fact that on account of the type of the electoral system that exists in the US, GWB became president, though he was not “actually” supposed to. Else, why would the election attract all the controversy as is evident from comments like the following:
The “people of the world” are NOT pontificating on the “subject of the election system in the U.S” nor is it any of their business. What is of concern to them however are the actions perpetrated by the Government of the US, that is run by the elected representatives of the people of America. That is how any country is viewed by others.
Your statements don’t make a lot of sense (did you just hear about the 2000 election controversy???).
You really need to read up on what actually happened and why, before deciding what is “apparent”.
Well, your overwhelming ignorance and decidedly unearned arrogance would be a starting point.
I believe that when Jackmanii said “people of the world,” he was refering specifically to you. You don’t know anything about American politics. And yet you seem to think that, despite being totally ignorant of the subject, your opinion somehow has weight, merit, or interest.
It does not.
Go read a newspaper, and then get back to us when you know what the fuck is going on.
Well, you said:
which was incorrect. When you were corrected on the matter, you appeared to simply blow off the correction by throwing a load of empty words at it.
I don’t think so. As a citizen of your country, it is your business to know the detailed working of your electoral system. All I need to be aware of is the simple fact that you live in a country that is a democracy, and being that, whatever the details of your electoral process, it supposedly meets the requirement of installing a democratically elected government. Maybe revisiting the definition of democracy might help in explaining my point.
One of the describing features is “Government by popular representation”, in other words “Majority rule”.
Regardless of the “controversy” in the past, present or anytime in the future, if your government gets elected democratically then it follows that it should have the defining features.
Rather than retorting in agitation, it would be helpful if you realize that as a non-American, my lack of understanding of your electoral process does not construe “overwhelming ignorance”. As an outsider, my concern is only with the fact that you call yourself a democracy, and as long as you call yourself that, it should be safe for me to presume that the defining features of the term exist in your system. Unless I have an academic need, I do not need to know the inner “workings” of your system.
I repeat what I have said earlier. I do not have to know anything about American politics. That is for your internal consumption and entertainment. However, I do, and will see the face of America as it appears to the world at large.
As you can see, going by the basic definition of democracy, I was not incorrect.
I do realize that this thread is in the pit, and I feel a little incompetent that I do not have the vocabulary of required expletives to do justice to my posts. But, never mind! I am learning.
Re-affirming what I said earlier, to someone in the world outside the US, the essence of the article in discussion seems quite appropriate.
If you want to offer your opinion on the poltics of our country, then it is absolutely your responsibility to have some cursory idea of exactly what you are talking about, or else I will call you an idiot. You idiot.
“Government by popular representation” does not, in any sense, translate to “majority rules.” And any democratic government that expects to last more than two or three elections will ensure that there are strong checks against pure “majority rule.”
Yes, actually, it does, at least when discussing the topic of American politics. Which, surprise surprise, is exactly what we’re doing here! Imagine that!
If you want to offer an opinion on our politics, then yes, in fact, you do need to know the inner workings of our system. Otherwise, you are ignorant, and your opinion, meaningless.
Yeah, well, there’s really not a lot we can do to influence how our government appears to total morons. I mean, how can we possibly plan for every possible bone-headed misinterpretation fielded by some fumble fingered fuckwit who can type faster than he can think?
Yes, of course, because the definitive work on the American political system is dictionary.com. Never mind if the definition of “democracy” on dictionary.com doesn’t match the politics of the United States. Obviously, the US is doing it wrong, because a political system evolved over two centuries to acommadate the needs of disparate population made up from every religious and ethnic group on the planet, and spread across the width of entire continent, should be perfectly reflected by the one-line definition of a single abstract word as found on a free internet reference site.
Sadly, I do not think this is true. Or possible.
Considering that you are clearly unable to accurately perceive which shoe goes on which foot, I think I can safely disregard your perception of the United States as being in any way exemplary of how the rest of the world perceives us.
What are you smoking? Yes you were incorrect. You made a factual statement – “…the leader can get elected only if he has more than 50% of the popular support…” which was flat-out wrong. The statement you made was about reality, not about the potential ideal state of a democracy.
What’s more, “majority rule” is the FOURTH definition of democracy FROM YOUR OWN CITE. The complete list:
Note that definition 1, usually considered the primary, says shit-all about majority.
You’ve been here (on the SDMB) since April. That’s long enough to have noticed that the vast majority of folks here are not stupid, and that what you’re trying won’t pass muster as a cite. So suck it up. Admit you were wrong, and move on.
Uh, why does it upset you? I think it’s a reasonably accurate assessment of the US, if a bit hyperbolic. I’m a white male American, by the way. And the discussion of race is pretty interesting to me, since it’s been demonstrated pretty clearly that black people, at least, definitely have less trust in the government than white folk.