Tag: Political Science

2010 Election Watch: The UK

From the desk of the Scriptorium

Election series 2010:  The UK

I realize that most of the people in the US could care less about the elections in the UK…..I think they are mistaken…….

I have been asked why I subject myself to the agony of politics…..the answer is easy….my education made me a political addict….it is the most fascinating of subjects…..I meet a lot of good friends and a bunch of crazies….both are interesting in their own way….and the exchange of views is almost a good exercise…..I have also been asked why I would be interested in the politics of another country….that is easy also…they have a different type of government and it plays differently than the Federal system we have here……I also depend on my friend Quin from Quintessential Havoc (blogroll will get you there) to help me understand better and to fill in the gaps that I will no doubt have in my posts concerning the UK and the EU…….

The election for PM of Britain is under way…..they have Brown from Labor, Cameron from the Tories and Clegg from the Liberal Democrats….as best I can tell it is pretty much a draw right now, but the LibDem Clegg is making lots of noise and could be a spoiler for one of the dudes….

The voting system is a bit unique , at least I think it is……..Rather than marking an ‘X’ against their preferred candidate, each voter ranks candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she is elected. However if no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority.  (Quin maybe able to expand this a bit)

The UK currently operates a simple plurality, first-past-the-post system. In this voting system the single winner is the person with the most votes; there is no requirement that the winner gain an absolute majority of votes.

Uses multi-seat constituencies and transfers votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. STV initially allocates an elector’s vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters’ stated preferences.  (Thanx to Reuters reporters for some of the facts in this post)

With that said…there is a push for electoral reforms in the UK….the issue is popular as it is in the US?

Labor

– Referendum early in the next parliament on whether to move to the Alternative Vote* system for elections to the House of Commons

– Free vote in parliament on reducing voting age to 16

– Legislation to ensure parliaments sit for a fixed-term

– Commission to chart a course to a written constitution

– Statutory register of lobbyists

– Completion of reform of the House of Lords

– Full implementation of a new system of independent regulation of MPs pay, pensions and allowances.

CONSERVATIVES

– Oppose change to ‘first-past-the-post’ system**

– Reduce the number of MPs by 10 percent to 585 from 650 (The US only has 435 Reps)

– Work to ensure consensus for substantially elected House of Lords

– Give House of Commons more control over own timetable

– Reduce discrepancy between constituency electorate sizes

– Right to kick out MPs found guilty of wrongdoing

– Ensure that legislation on devolved issues that only affects England, or England and Wales, can only be passed with the consent of MPs from England, and where applicable Wales

– Introduce new rules on lobbying

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

– Prefer Single Transferable Vote system***, which would allow them to cut MPs by 150

– Right to vote from age 16

– Fixed-term parliaments

– Replace House of Lords with fully elected second chamber with fewer members

– Introduce written constitution(Wait!  There is NO written constitution?)

– Right to sack MPs who have broken the rules

– Curb influence of lobbyists

Alternative vote

This will make the Brit system of electing a PM as clear as mud for most, but I think that what effects one country may ultimately show up in others and that includes the US……once again I apologize of my UK readers if I screwed up any of this…..I look forward to hearing from them….

Is A “Minimal” State Possible?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Government/

Paper #6

As usual I must give the usual suspect the credit for turning me on to this subject (and the headaches that go with it) Quin of Quintessential Havoc (my blogroll will get you this this insightful person and his site)…..we have had exchanges on the need to limit and/or reduce the size of government….I first studied this subject when I was in grad school and the subject of Libertarianism was taught……

If you have even a small grasp of politics then you already know that the Libertarians are all about smaller government….but it goes beyond just the smaller size issue…there are those within the movement that see a way to all but eliminate government altogether…basically foreign policy would be the only thing that a Federal government would be in control of…if they got their way……..

I believe it was Robt. Nozick that said that it was not the state’s place to propose an end solution to the problems of society (that may be a bit simplified, but you get the idea)…that to bring about economic equality would entail the government interfering unacceptably in individual’s liberties……he believed that state taxes were a forced labor by government to redistribute wealth…( I guess that is a common Libertarian belief)…..

Nozick proposed a “Minimal State”….meaning that the state was to be cvonsigned to foreign policy and all else would be privatized, including such services as the police…..he believed the fundamental rights of property overrode everything else and to legislate it was a communal overriding of the individual’s well being….

So Nozick’s minimal state would be small, every Libertarians dream, and the people would be left to their own devices….basically, to me it says, people will be poor because they want to be poor…….

I do not agree with him…..I think that a government free from interference would produce a vast society of ignorant, unemployed and homeless individuals….I think many people would agree that this cost would be a bit excessive…….

So is a “minimal state” possible?…….I think not….for a true economic justice would be good for the country as a whole, both rich and poor alike…….a balance needs to be found between NO justice and Maxed out justice….there is a balance point but so far it has eluded me as well as everyone else…..

Bureaucrats–Manage By Paperwork

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Government/Political History/Political Theory

Paper #3

For months now an avid reader Quin of Quintessential Havoc (go to blogroll it is an insightful and well done blog) and I have been bitching about bureaucrats and their influence on most governments….so I sat about to explain bureaucracy and its functions….not one of my more simple of endeavors……

I tried for several days to find an opening for this ……but each time it did not seem to have a good enough hook to catch the imagination of the reader……

Bureaucrats?  Bureaucracy?  What comes to mind when I mention those words….(pause for reflection)…..How about inefficiency?  Or red tape?  Would buck passing enter your mind?  Maybe unfeeling?  Would stupidity do it for you?

We all have an opinion on what a bureaucrat is….the most notable are a/holes, lazy, do-dahs……but there is a real honest to God definition of bureaucracy…..

There are a number of different meanings….1) a system of administration carried out on a continuous basis by trained professionals, 2) a system of government  where leading executive positions are filled by professional administrators……

No matter which one is your favorite…the very mention of bureaucracy sends chills down most people’s spine……bureaucracy is an endless stream of meetings and order…though both are extremely inefficient…the bureaucrat when faced with a dilemna the answer will be that the rules were not followed or that the proper paperwork was not submitted…it is NEVER the fault of the bureaucrat…..

Personnel changes, like when the new Pres comes in, never changes the bureaucracy, if anything the new admin will adopt to the bureaucracy….just look at the Obama Admin….a prime example…..then tampering with the budget of a bureaucracy seldom changes anything at all….a cut in the budget will bring about cuts in much needed programs…not in the personnel make-up….and then if we throw money at the bureaucracy….nothing change….the money will be spent on raises, enlarged staff, studies, commissions, consultants and more do-dahs….

Mediocrity is the rule of a bureaucrat, they are not conscientious or make no sacrifices or for that matter, they are not particularly innovative ….but the one characteristic that they all possess is loyalty….but that is not particularly a good thing…rather it is self-preservation…..for the one thing that is important to the bureaucrat is their longevity…..

But can bureaucracy ever be controlled?

So they say….but you decide……

The elitist say that role of political leadership and advocate a design to secure political of the bureaucracy; this includes the appointing of top executive positions…..and then there are theorists who believe in open government and advocate the open access to government documents and information…..the participatory theorist looks at the need for participation on the local level on the grounds that the character of policy cannot be separated from the manner of its execution…..

The bad news is that if representative form of democracy or government to work properly then a massive amounts of administrators (bureaucrats) is needed and then when the legislative branch becomes more dysfunctional the more bureaucrats are needed to make the government work……

So the bottom line is…if there is an accurate way to control and make a bureaucracy more efficient it is not known or the person is keeping it to myself…..there is lots of talk about the control….but none of it seems to work….why?…..because those that would make it work are part of the problem…the bureaucracy….a conundrum that has NO answer short of a total replacement of the system we have……and that is not an answer either….why?…..all systems need a degree of bureaucracy to succeed…the conundrum continues…..

Note:  Paper #4  will be on Participatory Democracy—I know the suspense will be almost intolerable but stay tuned….

Federalism–The Series–Part 5–Conclusion

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  American History/Political Theory/Government

The reader now has all the tools they would need to make an informed case either pro or con for Federalism.  Ask yourself is there a future for Federalism?  If so, what would that future look like?  Should Federalism change with the winds or is it to be set in stone with only one meaning and one outcome?

Thomas Paine said this about Federalism during the debate on the Articles of Confederation:

“I consider the individual sovereignty of the States retained under the Act of Confederation to be of the second Class of rights (Civil Rights.) It becomes dangerous because it is defective in the power necessary to support it. It answers the pride and purpose of a few Men in each State- but the State collectively is injured by it.”

Virtually all systems of governance is seldom a stagnant entity….it almost always in evolving mode….federalism is no different…..the federalism that the founders saw for the East Coast does not necessarily work properly when there is a whole continent involved.  Federalism has got to change when other changes occur….changes like population expansion, urbanization, economic shifts and local political changes…all these feed the necessity for change in the way governance responds to the needs of the country.

My personal opinion is that Federalism is not the best way to govern…why?….over the centuries and decades, Federalism has come to represent the influence of wealth over the people’s welfare…it no longer represents the republican attitude of governance.  I guess if I were alive during the massive debate I would have been a Federalist….why?….this is a nation, a strong nation, but the petty little games being played on the state levels have given rise to the beast the James Madison warned us about in Federalist #10….factions is its name……a partisanship is its game.  The longer this type of divisiveness continues the more harm it does to the country as a whole.

I would like to thank the website thisnation.com for all its information on Federalism….

“Fear And Loathing” In Washington

(Thanx to Hunter for part of the title)

I have, along with oh so many others, been a critic of the way the GOP is handling their opposition to anything the Dems propose.  These guys and gals may seem like they are insane but it is a method to their madness.

Back in the day I was a pretty active activist….and there are techniques to use when addressing issues….

“Fear and loathing” is a techniques where the activist takes an issue and turns it into something to be afraid of….like same sex marriage or health reform or …..pick one…they all do it…..NOTHING new.

The best way to accomplish this is by finding an issue and putting the opposition of defense….do not give them a chance to go on the offense….if you are watching the health reform debate unfold, then you are witnessing this technique.  It is not so much an ideology battle but rather just simple obstructionism.

If anyone has been watching the debate unfold then they have witnessed the use of props….babies…..throwing copies of the bill….holding the Constitution…..all of this is theatrics nothing about an ideology…nothing about alternatives….nothing offered as a solution….just plain obstructionism.

In case you are not sure what obstructionism is…then I can help……”to be a obstacle….to impede progress….to block or stop…..to hinder….”  so far the conservatives have done well using this tactic.  The Dems control the White House and both Houses of Congress and they still cannot get a bill passed without the wrangling and theater…..I would say that the theatrics are working and that the obstruction put into place by the conservatives is doing its job….slowing and possibly stopping any progress….

The Repubs have been using “fear” forever to push their agenda…the daddy of the GOP, Thomas Jefferson once said,  “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have”.  “Fear”….when you have nothing else……works every time!

Will Conservatism Make A Comeback?

With all the shenanigans this past summer and the economy’s slow pace to recovery…the country seems to be turning away form change and embracing conservative ideas….a recent Gallup Poll shows that 45% of Americans say they a conservative, 36% moderate and 20% liberal…so does this mean that the US is becoming more conservative?  If you want it to…then by all means cheer…but the Gallup is the ONLY poll that shows conservatives in the lead…..all others show that Americans identify themselves as moderate, then conservative and then liberal.

Writing about this subject E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:

It’s important to note that there is a debate over what these ideological labels actually mean to voters. And polls that give respondents the chance of calling themselves “progressive” produce a substantially larger number on the left end of the spectrum, since many who won’t pick the “liberal” label do call themselves “progressive.” A study earlier this year by the Center for American Progress found that when progressive and libertarian were offered as additional options, the country was split almost exactly in half between left and right.

To answer the question…..will conservatism make a comeback?……it never really was gone…it has been replaced with paleo-conservatism…real conservatism is always alive and well…it is just not in power right now….

When a party that calls itself conservative tries to eliminate all others wothout the “proper” set of “values”….is a dying party….if they cannot tolerate dissenting members then the party is doomed….just look at a lot of the “left” parties of the 1900’s…split after split after split until there was nothing left to make it as viable party.

Could the election in NY 23rd be a precursor to 2010?  Will true conservatives have to run against paleo-conservatives in a third party?  I do not see where there is much choice we either crap on real issues and vote solely on values or we just stay home….something Americans are famous for on off year elections…..

This could be the beginning of TAPS for an old party of conservatives….a once respected party….but now a much laughed at party….sad…it need not die like this…it deserves better…..

Note:  Over the weekend, the GOP candidate in NY’s 23rd has bowed out of the race leaving the neo-con to face the Dem…..did she do this for the good of the Party or was she coerced?

What Makes A Party Strong?

Inkwell Institute Analysis

Before we go any further we need to clear the air a bit.  CIA has ALWAYS targeted people for the things they are accused of now, Sotomayor WILL be confirmed, Liz Cheney needs to shut up and the Palin drama needs to go away.  Now to the meat of the post.

There has been much debate and jokes made about the strength of the GOP,  Some say it is irrelevant and yet others say it is just in the redinition stage after a massive defeat at the polls.  But what makes for a strong party?  In the book, “The Party’s Just Begun” written by Larry J. Sabato and Bruce Larson there is a 10 point summation of what makes a strong party and in using their guidelines I will point out whether the GOP is strong or flailing around looking for a rudder.

Using the authors 10 point analysis is the GOP a strong party?

1–equity and legitimacy–the GOP is losing ground with the middle, they no longer have a legit voice for them–1/2 point.

2–electoral appeal–last election has shown that there is none..failure–0 points

3–Participation and education–The GOP is failing miserably on teaching the electorate about their positions–0 points.

4–Accountability–the party is not doing a very good job of keeping their membership in line with party core beliefs–family values comes to mind–0 points

5–Conflict control–the GOP cannot control their extreme pundits–0 points

6–Resources–I will give them the point for having a core group that will donate no matter is going on…..1 point

7–Autonomy–this one is a bit difficult to analyze so I will give them the point….1 point

8–Policy Capacity–this is a complete failure for the GOP–they have little to no policies other than just saying “no” to everything.–0 points

9–Incentives–I cannot give them the point for this for I have been unable to find any incentive that would want to make people be a Repub.–0 points

10-Candidate assitance–I cannot give them the whole point for this….but they are trying to find a way to get candidates elected….even it is mostly smoke and mirrors….1/2 point.

The total for the GOP is a 3….and that low of a score would make the party a weak party with massive work to do to return to their past glory.  May I suggest that the GOP needs to look to the young for their next leadership, people like Meghan McCain.  The days of the old white guys is over and their antiquated thinking only is playing to the South and older white men.  The party will NEVER return to their past glory without the young generations.

I would like to thank Mr. Sabato and Mr. Larsen for their book and for the grading system that I used in my analysis.

The Left And Liberals and Progressives, Oh My!

For some unknown reason conservatives, all of them, have a problem differentiating those three types of Dems.  They have the tendency to lump all of them into the same envelope.  For instance, just what does “The Left” mean?  Who is the liberal?  Who are those darn Progressives?  Are they the same person?  These terms are “generic” for anyone not a conservative.  But who among them know the difference?  To them it is just labels to tag there opponents with in any election.

All are the “bogey man” to conservatives.  What does The Left really mean?  They are a much aligned and demonized sector of the political landscape.  These guys are the ones that everyone feared 50 years ago…they believe in health care for all birth to grave.  They think education should be free from K through college.  They are the ones who work for better labor practices from the government and corporations.  They are the ones that truly believe there are different classes within the societal make-up of the country.  In the past the Left was those darn pesky socialists.  Sorry to inform you but those days are gone and the Left is all but dead, except in the minds of old fart conservatives, which there is still a wealth of in the political parties.

Enter the Progressives–which can best be characterized in today’s terms as a revolutionary democrat.  They still believe in the value of the ballot box, but in a different way.  They believe that the people should make and vote on most major issues addressed by the government.  They believe that the people should participate in the government not be a spectator.

Oh my God, those damn LIBERALS–according to today’s campaigns they are anti-American, socialist, communist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, is that enough?  Liberals are nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin in the two party system.  Mostly, they are centrists which have a slight, ever so slight, lean to the left, but not enough to be called a leftist.

I submit that there is NOTHING sinister about being on the Left of the political spectrum. Just means that domestic and social policies are more important than being able to kick Iran’s ass in a fight.  To demonize a person because they are truly the ones putting “country first” is just moronic.  There is one of my fav sayings by John Mills, “I am not saying that conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives”.

There is another old saying “a liberal leaves the room when a fight breaks out.”  I added to it “A radical starts the fight and a conservative hires someone to do the fighting”.  By labeling people you can demonize all of the political thought as…..well whatever you want to label it….it is a coward’s way to approaching a disagreement……

Professor’s Classroom

Another Monday…another quiz…another attempt at education……a daunting task at best…….Ok, political philosophy….

A political philosopher at a theory of an “organic state”, who was it and what does the theory say?

Come on this is not rocket science and there is a google button somewhere that can help….good luck….good day…

What Is A Liberal?

If one spends much time on line, especially if you are interested in politics, one would see that Conservs and liberals seldom agree on much.  As a matter of fact, being a liberal is akin to being mentally ill.  But the problem is that not many really understand the term liberal.

For years I have been analyzing, reporting and debunking the American political system.  Most Americans think that they are either conservative or liberal, a bit simplistic, at best but that is the way they think.  For instance, if youare not a Republican then you are on the Left(?).  I have yet to find one person that thinks that way that can explain it satisfactorily.  To think that a Democrat is somehow a Leftist, is beyond humor and flies straight into ignorance.

First, if a person is to be labelled a Liberal–what type of liberal are they?  Classical or Modern?  Ask that question and then observe the face of the person being questioned–”a deer caught in the headlights” comes to mind.  Confusion is a good description, but really not that accurate.

Let us take a look at the types of Liberals there are:

Classic Liberal–the so called father of liberalism–John Locke pretty much defines it as thus:

Individual is more important than the state and becomes a citizen of the state only through consent.

The individual is rational and capable of making his/her own decisions.

Progress is possible in political affairs, so change should not be feared.

State power should be limited.

Economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

Economic freedom is more important than economic equality.

Next is what we shall call a Modern Liberal–

Government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes necessary to prevent individuals from denying freedom to others.

Liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms:  as the liberty to seek out ways to develop the human potential and contgribute in a meaningful way to society.

Economic inequalities is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their chances of being free.

These are a bit simplistic as I have said and could be expanded on which in turn would make the whole thing so confusing that no amount of trying could bring about an understanding.

I sincerely hope that this has assisted the reader in some way, to help identify the differences in liberals and has help in the identification of what a liberal really believes.  They are not all Leftists, as some would have you believe.