[339>US120]:11.5=[60x4+60] #1.Taiwan & UK Elections(2) #2."The Only True Democracy, Armed Liberty" Military Bus., Hussein, Kosovo, Urban Legend.

China < US Space Arms: http://tinyurl.com/99zop US Global Military Industry: http://tinyurl.com/9ogv5 US Martial Law? http://tinyurl.com/a7xfl DeLay Money Laundering? http://tinyurl.com/d3zqp CIA rendition flights: http://tinyurl.com/cgg27 Iraq Air War: http://tinyurl.com/b9a7g IraqForces BigSetback: http://tinyurl.com/dwtzp Saddam Hussein Trial: http://tinyurl.com/b8plk Independent Kosovo? http://tinyurl.com/cdcsk Darfur Genocide: http://tinyurl.com/bsqd7 Urban Legends: http://tinyurl.com/stve Tombstone Online: http://www.tombstone.org/ Uploading files: http://tinyurl.com/e32nb Fair wind cold cool: Up 5:55, drive Jun to BART, then to rental house not getting S.8 lease. Mei back, off, back 11:30am simple lunch then off. Answered [C]R on US UK election, with US Taiwan >#1. Lung back 12:10pm. 2pm no lunch yet, C-SPAN2: Jeffrey Cole on Internet: tombstone! Answer [N] with "The Only True Democracy, Armed Liberty #1000" >#2-1, then lunch. Later #1001: "Down With Liars (States)!" >#2-2. Mei gets signed Section 8 lease from tenant, she vacuums, 11:18pm, earlier to retire, arrange room after vac, Jun computer. Bed 12:55. #1: Taiwan & UK Election Systems(2): "Where is the Democracy's Problems? #1001+2: US, UK, Taiwan: Brainwashing & Reasonable Standings": "" [Tsai 05.12.5=1 #1] Massachusette Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, has just talked about "Prepared Rules Changes for the U.S. House" [ , at C-SPAN. Someone has said to correct profoundly corrupting practices. Redisthttp://tinyurl.com/6wufz ] ricing reform could not rule money out, but only to limit "special interest" control. Term limits in the other hand, which only benefits special interests and bureaucrats. No gerrymandering in Taiwan, since there is no separate electorate district from national, provincial, county, or whatever boundaries. Why not, and was it invented? There is also limit to the amount of money used for campaign, I think. House is looked as a full-time job, against Founders. Ethics Committee? There is a Clean Governance Agency(?) in Hong Kong. Neighborhood district, Li, and districts within Taipei City are not served by election, I think also.. Under decades of KMT terror rule and manipulation, most Taiwanese for public works were forced to join KMT, except a few "excessively principled nuts". So the DDP Taiwanesse national goverment is swimming in the sea of KMT which is finally rising up to drown it, and which is coming back to the "Chinese" rule, after 5 years, with the help of the former Pres. Lee Teng-hui, and the former Chairman of KMT, who was expelled from his party, who is rather angry about current DDP President's timidness and so on, under the condition of media, Taiwanese, Chinese of Taiwan and of China, attack and insult of both Taiwanese Presidents. It's incredible. 1. "A tradition of professionalism within the Civil Service" is in the KMT sea. 2. "A politically-independent judiciary" is same still also? DPP influence? 3, "A free, politically independent and inquisitive press and media"?! Owned overwhelmingly by the KMT interests, and partially by China through Hong Kong. But, heavily influenced by Chinese threats and Chinese global media management. 4. "Limitations on electoral spending (so that you can't "buy" electoral success", I think there is limit, but the KMT tradition of managing votes all across and top to bottom. 5. "Politicians who are actually committed to the concept and values of democracy", Older DPP members yes: they have sacrificed themselves fighting the KMT rule into death (even whole family), prisons, etc. The resurrected and finely disguised KMT rulers (new Chairman Ma was a KMT spy reporting on Taiwanese, as a UC Berkeley student). And old KMTers dreaming of priviledged past and the great Chinse future rather than democracy. Heaven helps us! ===================== R. wrote: We get "three in one" elections periodically - they're thought to inherently slightly favour Labour. Levels of voter-turnout generally differ from election-type to election type - Highest for a national election, and progressively lower as the size of the constuency gets smaller. So, in a national election the turnout (generally about 2/3) is higest, for a county council election it's smaller, for a town council smaller still, and for a parish council hardly anyone at all votes (or cares about who wins) You'd think if you're voting for National, County and Town representatives at the same time, each party would achieve roughly the same level of success in each election type. That is, If I'm voting here in Weston-super-Mare for the "Hillside" candidate to Weston Town Council, "Weston North" Candidate to North Somerset Country Council and "Weston" candidate to Parliament, the probability is that I'd vote for the same party's candidates for all three elections - and so would most other voters. The nature of the "First past the post" electoral system (where you carve a country up into geographical areas, each of whom elects its own representative, and the party with most representatives is declared the winner) means that it's possible to be the party that got the majority of votes nationally... and to LOSE the election. Tony Blair's Labour party got FEWER votes in England than the Conservatives at the last election - but won more seats and overall victory (with the lowest number of votes cast for them in UK electoral history) The key to electoral success is "win small lose big". Let's say there are ten seats in a parliament, each of which represents 100 voters. So the total electorate is 1000 votes. You'd think that the party who gets more than 500 votes would automatically win. But that's not how it works. "Party A" gets 60 votes in six districts, and only 25 in the other four. 6x60 + 4x25 = 460 votes in total - and six out of ten seats, they win, they are the new government "Party B" Got 80 MORE votes than "Party A", and still lost. It's possible to rig elections by redrawing electoral boundaries with the aim of achieving the kind of result that "Party A" did in the above example. Assume that "poor" people are going to vote "left" and rich are going to vote "right", and you know where each lives. move a line, and you can transfer some of your votes from one electoral district to another. It's a technique invented by (or at least named after) an American politician named Eldridge Gerry. Someone looked at the newly-designed map of electoral boundaries in Massacheusetts, and declared that one district now looked "like a salamander" - His friend replied, "Not a Salamander - it's a Gerrymander". And the name stuck. Legal questions are being raised about previous "Gerrymandering" in Texas (you may recall that the Democrats ran away to prevent a quorum being formed that would allow districts to be redrawn) It seems that a sizeable chunk of Texas Democrats have dark skins, and thanks to 1960's attempts to circumvent the law insisting on the right of ALL races to participate in elections, a law was passed back them making it an offence to even TRY to interfere with "the black vote". Reducing the number of electoral districts and absorbing traditional Democrat-voting districts into several neighbouring districts - if done skillfully - can ensure that their votes are almost certainly not going to return the candidate of their choice. You can turn areas that previously always returned a candidate from one party into districts that always return candidates from the other party... and the courts seem open to the idea that this is a criminal act, if it's demonstrable that the voting rights of the "coloured" community has been damaged. Democracy is in part a willingness to accept your defeat if the other side win. "Cheating" is about as undemocratic as it gets. "Three in one" elections - because they offer a snapshot of voter-distribution when it's broken down into different electoral sub-districts - make Gerrymandering obvious. In England, the towns usually vote "left" (large towns are subdivided when it comes to National Elections - so that each MP reperesents roughly the same number of constituents. Bristol, for example, is split into five districts, four of which are held by Labour, and Bristol West by the Liberal Democrats - but for most of its history was held by the Conservatives) and the countryside votes either Conservative or Lib Dem. Deciding where the line should be drawn between "town" and "country" is thus kind of important. A prosperous "leafy suburb" that straddles - and efectively ignores - the town limits presents a problem. Should it be split, or should the electoral district's line be drawn around it? Which side? That's not a decision it's safe to leave to politicians. Too much of a temptation for the party currently in power to abuse their power by redrawing lines to water-down the opposition's vote. (A grand old political tradition in Texas - by both parties. A Texan, and former governor of Texas lecturing the world on "Democratic Values" is thus kind of ironic.) In the UK, electoral districts are under continuous review by an organisation known as "The Electoral Commission". It's run by civil servants, who make all the decisions. Civil servants are expected to display "professionalism". That is, it should be impossible to tell by their words or their actions which political party they support. Personal political allegiances should - and indeed must - be left at the door when they enter their workplace. So, I think we've identified another piece of the jigsaw - which, when completed, shows a picture entitled "what you need to run an honest democracy". Namely a tradition of professionalism within the Civil Service. From memory, the other peices were a politically-independent judiciary; a free, politically independent and inquisitive press and media; limitations on electoral spending (so that you can't "buy" electoral success); and politicians who are actually committed to the concept and values of democracy. "Holding elections" falls a LONG way short of what you need to be a democracy. I may have missed some.... "" #2-1. "The Only True Democracy, Armed Liberty #1000": "" [Tsai 05.12.5=1 #1] Isn't it really great, David, and especially Al? That's the essence of military democracy, the foundation of pure and direct, or true democracy! ==================== D. wrote: --- In [N], K.wrote: > > I think you're overestimating how pervasive the guns > are to Swiss culture. They are there but the average > joe (or Johann) would not be thinking about getting > one if they heard a funny noise downstairs. First of > all the thing is locked up tight down in the basement. > Second of all you could kill someone with one of > those things. > D.: I think you are underestimating how pervasive they are. They have big shooting ranges in every little village! People ride their bikes around with rifles strapped to their backs. Marksmanship is taught in elementary school for Christ sake! The Swiss do have much lower crime rate than we do, but don't think that guns are never used to commit them there. In 1997 there were 189 murders and attempted murders in Switzerland. Almost half of them (91) involved firearms (compared to 70% of murders in the US involving guns). The total crime figures are far lower, but the use of guns in the percentage of crimes is not that different. And, as I mentioned in another post, close to half of violent crimes in Switzerland are committed by the 20% of the population that are NOT Swiss citizens. If you are interested in the understanding how "pervasive the guns are to Swiss culture," I highly recommend the following source: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html Which includes: "What, asks the tourist brochure Zürich News, are the annual events that one must see in Switzerland's largest city? Under "Festivals and local customs" is the entry: "Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest), the oldest Zürich tradition, takes place on the second weekend in September. It consists of a shooting contest at the Albisgüetli [range] for 12 to 16 year-old boys/girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." After that, the next big event is St. Nicholas Day in December. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung devoted an entire page to the 1996 Knabenschiessen, noting that 3,667 teens had participated and announcing the shooting "king" and "queen." Large pictures of girls and boys with assault rifles and driving bumper cars (not at the same time!) laced the page. The event has been held since 1657. I once attended a shooting match near Lucerne where the prizes--from rifles and silver cups to computers and bicycles--were on display at the local elementary school. You could see the children's art show while you were there.... In American society, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and excessively-violent movies. In Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. By the range will be a huge tent where scores or even hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing.... Some 72,000 competitors participated in the Federal Schuetzenfest in Thun in 1995, making it the largest rifle shooting match in the world. (The American National Matches that year attracted only 4,000 shooters out of 260 million citizens.)... Since the founding of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow, the armor-piercing ammo of the age, not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs and kept its independence. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom." "" #2-2. "The Only True Democracy, Armed Liberty #1001: Down With Liars (States)!" "" [Tsai 05.12.5=1 #2] What a good life. And, it also points to the direction of my contention that the national, federal, and all other imperial STATES have been in the midst of paranoid fear of secession, autonomy, and anarchy, for the past few centuries. Persons are far more rational than the states, constantly under the their own intrinsic organizational nature of violence and absurd stupidity of deceitful treachery and machinery waterloos. They have been outdated for quite some times now. Leave us alone babies, your times are up, and you are ridiculous!. =================== D. wrote: --- In ., ".p" <.p> wrote: > > I think the reality in Swiss culture is being explained poorly. They have guns in every home true, but they also have the most repressive > anti-gun laws in the world. The guns they are required to keep are > government property under lock and key, and a Swiss would no more > think of unlocking them for his own use, under any circumstances, > than he would think of flapping his arms and flying to the moon. > They are locked up and forgotten until authority orders them unlocked. > D.: Not quite accurate. The Swiss take their military issue rifles to the shooting ranges regularly (although they are supposed to buy and use their 7.62mm ammo at the range, keeping their military issued ammo at home for use in time of war), but their kids and family also use those assault rifles for shooting competitions. They also own their own guns and there are no ownership regulations on shotgins or rifles (including "assault rifles"). On the other hand, 15 of the 16 cantons do have regulations on handguns, requiring permits to buy them and special new "show cause" permits to carry them in public. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is quite common to see Swiss walking or riding bikes with a rifle (even an "assault rifle") slung over their back (mostly among those going to or from the firing ranges -- which are very popular family hang outs). >.P: There is something that American's perhaps should face. We are a violent people, and this is the root of the problem, not the > availability of our guns. D.: There is some truth in that. But it is wrong to think that places like Switzerland don't have violent crime or mass murderers either. On September 27, 2001, a lone gunman shot and killed 14 people in the cantonal parliament in Zug, near Zurich. Our media sort of missed that, since we were focused on 9/11 at the time. Of course this took place two years AFTER Switzerland introduced some tough new gun laws in 1999 that restricted the people's ability to carry concealed weapons. Prior to those new laws it would have been much more likely that at least one of those 14 victims would have able to defend themselves when the Zug parliament came under fire from a madman. "The irony is that to stop crime Switzerland is seeking to emulate the strict gun-control regulations of its neighbors, when the reverse should be the case. Neighboring Austria, France, Germany, and Italy, all with stricter gun-control laws, had murder rates during 2000 that were 21 to 112 percent higher than Switzerland's. With the exception of Austria, they all also have far higher robbery rates. Only Italy had fewer reported rapes. In England and Wales, where handguns are totally banned and few people are allowed to own rifles or shotguns, the murder rate was 68 percent higher, the rape rate 188 percent higher, and the robbery rate a staggering 493 percent higher." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp .P: This is anecdotal evidence so you may > judge its worth, but I have gotten roaring drunk in European bars on more occassions than modesty would allow me to admit, and I have > never, not even once, seen a bar room fight break out. D.: My anecdotal evidence is quite to the contrary. I lived in Chamonix, France (and spent a lot of time over the mountain in Switzerland and Itlay too). ""