Dispatches from the Creation Wars

The construct "I don't want to [A], but [A]" has always fascinated me. It makes me wonder if they think they can walk into a bank and say "I don't want to bounce this check which I do not have enough in my account to cover, but cash it anyway" and walk out with money.

Posted by: Chris Anderson | October 29, 2008 9:45 AM

Why are there so many fucking assholes in my country?

Posted by: Josh | October 29, 2008 9:50 AM

Reminds me of the Orgasmo movie made by the South Park guys:

Dave: Dude, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think you got a hot ass!

Dave: I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I'd kinda like to make love to you tonight.

Posted by: Dwayne Allen | October 29, 2008 9:56 AM

It's always "I don't want to sound racist" rather than "I don't want to be racist." Like, "I was hoping to keep this a secret, but then this guy had to go and run for president, so now I guess I'll just have to let everybody know that I am racist."

Posted by: Eric | October 29, 2008 10:01 AM

Ian - spooky coincidence, I was reading your post just as Media Player got to "I don't like it" by Pauline Pantsdown. :)
"Why can't my blood be colored white?/
I should talk to some medical doctors/
colored blood is just not right." - The Oxley Moron.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Republican Party,
I don't want to sound partisan but, I wouldn't even consider voting for you* in a one party state.
Without regrets,
DINGO
*If, indeed I could.

Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2008 10:07 AM

Dingo, please explain?

PS to America - we still have a budget surplus here and the government has issued an essentially unlimited guarantee on bank deposits. Did I mention the universal healthcare and the indefinite unemployment benefits?

That's what we get for voting for the socialists.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 10:14 AM

Mr. Gould, I've been to your country and it's a wonderful place. What would I have to do to live there? (Leaving the U.S. behind.)

Posted by: Mick | October 29, 2008 10:29 AM

It makes me wonder if they think they can walk into a bank and say "I don't want to bounce this check which I do not have enough in my account to cover, but cash it anyway" and walk out with money.

Chris, the answer is "yes." You just summed up Republican fiscal policy since 1981.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 29, 2008 10:42 AM

Mick - it's really not that diffciult we take about 100,000 immigrants a year.

We need them to help deal with the crippling labor shortage and the resultant sky-rocketing real wages.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 10:44 AM

Yes there are racists is America. That goes without saying.

But we are about to elect a black man to the nation's highest office.

By comparison:

Is Australia close to having an Indigenous Australian as its Prime Minister?

Is Britain close to having a person of color from its former colonies as Prime Minister? Maybe an Indian or an African?

Is Germany about to have a son or daughter of a Turkish worker as its Chancellor? A Jew?

Is France about to have the child of a Moroccan or Algerian immigrant as her President?

What's a Korean's chances to hold the highest office in Japan?

There is indeed racism in America. But we don't deserve to be lectured to by most of the world. Remove the mote from your own eyes first.

Posted by: heddle | October 29, 2008 10:51 AM

Dude -

What does "racist" mean? Lots of people seem to equate "racism" with "hate" so they really think that they aren't "racist" because they really don't "hate" black people and
so they get really upset at being called a "racist" just because they think in stereotypes but really don't "hate" anyone.

Posted by: libarbarian | October 29, 2008 10:57 AM

My Heddle, what a load of nonsense.

"Is Australia close to having an Indigenous Australian as its Prime Minister?"

Why not ask Jenny Wong, Isaac Isaacs, Zelman Cowan, Aden Ridgeway, Bill O'chee, Mal Brough or the families of the late Neville Bonner and Doug Nicholls what they think?

Personally though my money is on Noel Pearson.

"Is Britain close to having a person of color from its former colonies as Prime Minister? Maybe an Indian or an African?'

Don't be ridiculous, next you'll be suggesting they're going to have an Italian Jew as PM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disraeli

"Is France about to have the child of a Moroccan or Algerian immigrant as her President?'

Of course not - just ask Segolene Royal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9gol%C3%A8ne_Royal

"What's a Korean's chances to hold the highest office in Japan?"

Well let's see, given that the Imperial family is basically of mixed Korean/Chinese descent, the chances of a Korean becoming Emperor is roughly 100%.

Given that approximately 1/5 of the Japanese population circa. 1620 was of Korean origin (with significant further admixture of Koreans during the Meiji and Taisho eras and especially post world War II), the chances of "a Korean" becoming Prime Minister also approaches unity.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 11:18 AM

If a racist falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear him, does he still SOUND racist...

This kind of self-delusion reminds me of weasel apologies: "I'm sorry if you got offended by me saying you can't run the country because you're black." No regret for the actual bad behavior, while at the same time implying it's the other person's fault ("well, duh, if you were white, I wouldn't HAVE to question your worth!")

Posted by: marnk | October 29, 2008 11:24 AM

"Remove the mote from your own eyes first."

I believe the word you were looking for there was actually "beam".

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 11:25 AM

Great comment: "If you associate with terrorists, you're a terrorist!"

...And it never occurred to Joe The Dumbfuck that he just stated that America is a terrorist nation.

Posted by: Ernst Hot | October 29, 2008 11:28 AM

Most of the racists I know and have dealt with, including most of my family, don't actually hate black people as such. They just think they're inferior. They're ok as long as they stay in their place, in other words.

Lastly, yes heddle has a point. But just because the majority may be ready to elect a black man doesn't let us off the hook for the extreme, virulent racism of our substantial and increasingly-vocal minority.

Posted by: WScott | October 29, 2008 11:36 AM

Ian Gould,

Yeah, yeah that's a bunch of bull.

I'll clarify:

Is England about to have a person of color from India or Africa as its PM?

Is France about to have a person of color from Morocco or Algeria (or Senegal) as its President?

Is Germany about to have a Turk as its Chancellor?

In Japan--let's talk about the children of recent Korean immigrants. Those, perhaps, who attend the Korean schools in Japan. Is one of them on the verge of becoming head of state? Do you think the Koreans in Japan believe that they face no discrimination?

You mentioned some Australians--I did not detect an indigenous Australian PM in the group. Did I miss one?

David Durant,

We did have a female PM almost 20 years ago though...

Fair enough.

Posted by: heddle | October 29, 2008 11:42 AM

Ian - I'm afraid your argument about all Japanese being part Korean may be true, but is utterly nonsensical in the context of this discussion. You could just as easily say that nearly all Americans have some "colored" blood in their lineage, therefore race isn't a factor in American politics.

I lived in Korea for several years, and have several friends who lived in Japan. In my limited-and-entirely-anecdotal experience, their racial relations make the US look like one big happy family.

Posted by: WScott | October 29, 2008 11:47 AM

There's only one way that sentence can end that would make me think that the person really isn't racist.

"I don't want to sound racist, but I don't want a black man running my country. I don't want a white man running my country, either. I don't want any man running my country. Clinton versus Palin, 2012, woo!"

So, take your pick -- racist for not wanting a black in charge, or sexist for not wanting a man in charge. Or possibly anarchist for not wanting anyone in charge. If all you are going to mention about a candidate is that he is black, an adult male human, and might be running the country, then I'm going to think you have something against one or more of those. And, yes, if it's the first, you are going to sound racist, unless you keep your mouth shut or at least try to find a reason to tell me other than his skin color.

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | October 29, 2008 11:49 AM

Heddle, the descendants of most recent Korean immigrants are BY CHOICE Korean nationals - indeed most of them have North Korean citizenship. As such they are ineligible to serve in the Diet.

"You mentioned some Australians--I did not detect an indigenous Australian PM in the group. Did I miss one?"

No - to date there have been exactly the same number of indigenous Australian Prime Ministers as there have been African-American Presidents. We have however been at this for a considerably shorter time than you.

There have however been indigenous Australians (and Asian Australians) as senior Ministers and heads of political parties; Aboriginal state governors and not one but three Jewish Governors-General.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 11:58 AM

I don't want to sound angry, but I totally want to kick that guys ass

Posted by: Simba | October 29, 2008 11:58 AM

"I lived in Korea for several years, and have several friends who lived in Japan. In my limited-and-entirely-anecdotal experience, their racial relations make the US look like one big happy family."

Yes but the weird, creepy thing is Mr. Kim can legally change his name to Tanaka, get Japanese citizenship and run for the Diet and nobody will so much as mention the fact he used to be a Korean dog.

One of the most unhinged anti-Korean bigots I ever met freely admitted that her grandparents were Koreans - but SHE was Japanese.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 12:07 PM

Abdul Bukharam - Equador

Carlos Menem - Argentina

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 12:10 PM

What song is that at the end?

I believe it is a slightly modified version of Pete Seeger's 1941 "Talking Union" sung by someone else with a rap beat.

Posted by: Don't Panic | October 29, 2008 12:20 PM

Quick coupel of points here;

1. I'm up late here because i'm currently downloading a bunch of hardcore porn from the interent.

2. In my day job, I import and wholesale books and DVDs from the US. I spent a good part of the day going over a catalog supplied by my main US supplier converting prices and otherwise getting it ready to send out to our wholesale accounts. The easiest part of the job is flagging adult material that might be stopped by Customs - because I know for a fact that anything that's restricted for import by Australian Customs will be flagged as adults only in the US.

The hard part is all the titles that are considered adults only in the US that can be sodl freely here.

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Well, what do you expect? I don't think I've ever seen, or even heard of, an american who was not racist (if you use the real definition of the word, not the modern american meaning).

Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 29, 2008 12:29 PM

Given Heddle's argument that Royal and Sarkozy don't count because they're kinda-whitish; I'm sure he'll be equally unimpressed by the fact that India has elected Sikhs and Dalits to the Presidency and that Indonesia had a Bugis President (Habibie).

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 12:33 PM

Heddle - Incidentally I'll look forward to President Barack Obama formally apologizing to the Indigenous Americans for their mass murder, forced re-locations, dispossession of their lands and restriction of their languages, sometime in March 2009.
Indians, Canadians, Australians, South Africans &etc. can't run for a seat in the British Parliament as they are separate countries, any more than a Mexican or Filipino/Filipina can run for Congress or the Senate. (Hee hee forgot about Disrali, what about Jack Profumo or Lord Astor [Italian and American ancestry, respectively])
BTW the second German Chancellor was an Italo-Slovene (and looks every inch of it too in his portrait). -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2008 12:34 PM

Not to sound like a fascist...'BUT' we should ship all of these mentally feeble racist dolts to a labor colony somewhere...maybe northern North Dakota...or northern Alaska better still!

Posted by: stevogvsu | October 29, 2008 12:49 PM

Great video, keep exposing republicans as the predictable despicable fascists they are.

Posted by: sohojinx | October 29, 2008 12:50 PM

"Given the support Obama has in the black community, couldn't it be assumed that some of these supporters are voting for Obama simply because he is black?"

How many people do you think are voting for McCain "simply because he is white"?

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Not to sound like a fascist...'BUT' we should ship all of these mentally feeble racist dolts to a labor colony somewhere...maybe northern North Dakota...or northern Alaska better still!

Maybe, but make sure it's somewhere nice enough to keep them docile and shit enough to stop them becoming unbearably smug. We British learned the latter lesson by 'punishing' our criminal population with their own island paradise and they're still fucking gloating about it, the bastards.

Posted by: Matthew | October 29, 2008 1:06 PM

I don't want to sound smart but that guy sounds stupid.

Posted by: Phil | October 29, 2008 1:12 PM

Yes but the weird, creepy thing is Mr. Kim can legally change his name to Tanaka, get Japanese citizenship and run for the Diet and nobody will so much as mention the fact he used to be a Korean dog.

Posted by: WScott | October 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Gee, JED (and isn't THAT a telltale name?) the African-American vote always goes at least 80% to the Democratic Party, mostly because you guys gladly incorporated the racist Dems who ran out of the party in 1964 after the Civil Rights Act.

So you gonna call ALL of them racist? I'd call them prudent given the Palinite/Klan rallies we've seen all across Amerika and how their hate is empowered by every word out of the Witch of Wasilla.

Not that I'm biased or anything....

Posted by: John | October 29, 2008 1:35 PM

"DJ, too bad we can't organise a Presidential sweep.

Maybed \we could bet on who took which states."

Given that my dollars now kind of have value again, I'd throw into that kind of racket.

Posted by: John | October 29, 2008 1:38 PM

JED - I got news for you, 'The (reverse) Bradley Effect" is a lie.
There is no evidence in the polling numbers over the last few cycles to support it*. Therefore the voters are responding to the White/Kenyan candidates POLICIES as seen by the higher than expected early voter numbers (despite long delays and bad weather) and the stronger Democrat support from a range of demographics. -DJ
*See DiveThirtyEight.com, amongst others, for fulsome analysis of the polls.

Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Gee, JED (and isn't THAT a telltale name?)

"JED" are my initials, no matter what your simple mind thinks it means. Clearly, you are biased.

Posted by: JED | October 29, 2008 1:50 PM

"That doesn't answer whether or not some black voters are voting for Obama simply because he is black. When you have numbers in the neighborhood of 90%, then there must be some explanation."

So what percentage of the African American vote did Clinton, Gore and Kerry get?

Posted by: Ian Gould | October 29, 2008 1:54 PM

John - Can I use "Wicked Witch of Wassila"*? Although I agree with Bee, it IS funny.
I can imagine her saying "I'll get you, you elitist, and your little lap-dog too!" -DJ
*I'll trade you "Quisling Quasimodo from Queensland"
BTW If Palin goes into the rain does she melt?

Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2008 2:02 PM

JED, let me refer you to a friend's post on the "90%" figure...

http://kynn.livejournal.com/877563.html

Posted by: Squiddhartha | October 29, 2008 2:18 PM

"BTW If Palin goes into the rain does she melt?"

- No, but apparently McCain does, which is why he chickened out yesterday in PA. Odd for a guy behind in the polls to not get out wherever any voter is.

And yes, use and abuse any terms you've got to use. Love the Wicked Witch angle.

And JED, OF COURSE I am biased. Once the Palinites went on their racial purity angle, anyone NOT white should have solidly turned against the top of the GOP ticket.

As for historical trends:

"The United States Census reported that 58 % of African Americans were voting in the presidential election of 1964. African Americans were voting Democratic 82% of the time. This number would swell to 92 % by 1968. With the exception of the 1972, 1984, and the 1992 elections Blacks would continue to give at least 80% of their collective votes to the Democratic presidential candidate says Minion K.C. Morris in African Americans and Political Participation."

- cited at http://racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/african_american_voting_patterns

I'm sure anyone can find firmer numbers than this though.

Um, your straw man is on fire.

Posted by: John | October 29, 2008 2:39 PM

The first question is why doesn't he want to sound racist?

Posted by: David | October 29, 2008 2:44 PM

No, but apparently McCain does, which is why he chickened out yesterday in PA. Odd for a guy behind in the polls to not get out wherever any voter is.

"Odd" is right. Offhand, I'd guess McSame backed out of that because: a) he's about ready to give up PA and possibly the whole election; b) the prospect of defeat is wearing him down physically, making him c) more vulnerable to colds or flu; and d) he's REALLY OLD and NOT IN THE BEST OF HEALTH, and needs to take such precautions just to make it to Inauguration Day. All the more reason to vote for Obama, just to make damn sure Palin doesn't become President.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 29, 2008 2:45 PM

You don't want to sound racist but you are racist AND stupid when you say things like that !

Posted by: joel bourne | October 29, 2008 3:12 PM

It's been over two years (and it hasn't been fun)
Since the first of the candidates started to run;
Now the shouting and screaming is reaching its peak--
A sign that we vote in just under a week.

[...]

(If we're lucky, it might last a month, maybe two,
Before someone starts the whole process anew.)

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-home-stretch.html

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 29, 2008 3:21 PM

Why doesn't anyone show the Obama supporters who behave worse than this? I've been threatened with violence at my job by customers for supporting McCain. Too bad I didn't bring a video camera to work so I could post that to YouTube, huh? Not like it'd matter, everyone's too busy to smell their own.

Posted by: anonymous | October 29, 2008 3:39 PM

/What's with that woman in the video who claimed that Obama was born in Kenya? /

My mistake: it was a man.

I can't believe that this level of hatred and ignorance and lying (I presume whoever made the signs saying CAtholics who vote for Obama will be excommunicated knows that's ridiculously false) exists. Well, yes I can believe it exists in small pockets in the U.S. What horrifies me is that these people are apparently so numerous and so mainstream that they can dominate an official Republican event AND neither McCain nor any other Republican leader denouces them.

And some of those neanderthals aren't even concerned about hiding their racism behind some slightly more acceptable facade, like, "his associations and his judgments are unAmerican." (What unAmerican associations? Having a Kenyan father? What is an unAmerican judgment and what ones does Obama hold?)

Posted by: plum grenville | October 29, 2008 3:47 PM

/Why doesn't anyone show the Obama supporters who behave worse than this? I've been threatened with violence at my job by customers for supporting McCain. Too bad I didn't bring a video camera to work so I could post that to YouTube, huh? Not like it'd matter, everyone's too busy to smell their own./

Yeah, anonymous, it is too bad you didn't bring a video camera to work to document all that racist hatred being spewed by Obama supporters against McCain at an official Democratic party event. Of course if that happens all the time, I'm sure it won't be long before someone who's a little quicker on the draw than you with the camera in his cellphone gets some footage to show us what racists those Obama people are.

What kind of job do you have anyway, anonymous, where customers launch into threats and political diatribes for no reason at all? I certainly wouldn't bother subjecting some innocent employee of some random business having no particular connection to one side or the other to my rantings in support of the candidate I favoured.

"Bad behaviour" by individuals on all sides is unfortunately inevitable in a political campaign. It only reflects on a party or a candidate if they refuse to denounce it.

I suspect anonymous considers racism to be no different from any other kind of name-calling or mudslinging. Let me guess, bucko, you're white and you have no idea what racism is all about.

Racism is a systematic pattern of oppression. It is endemic in America and any racist act or remark has ramifications that go far beyond the individual who is the immediate target. Verbal abuse regarding individual characteristics - calling McCain a lying, cheating, adultering swine, say - is in no way comparable, regardless of the level of abuse.

Posted by: plum grenville | October 29, 2008 4:27 PM

I like the contrast between the two rally groups. All of the McCain supporters are shouting slogans decrying Obama instead of encouraging McCain, and almost half of them have signs that basically say "don't vote for Obama because he's a (insert slanderous attack here)" instead of McCain/Palin signs.

The Obama supporters, on the other hand, are chanting "Obama" and I didn't see a single sign that said "McSame," "Caribou Barbie" or fascist-something. All of them had Obama/Biden campaign signs.

That really puts things into perspective, huh?

Posted by: MisterDomino | October 29, 2008 6:04 PM

The law that gave McCain citizenship was passed after he was born, so you could argue a case that he's not a "natural-born citizen" under the letter of the law.

only if you ignore the citizenship of his parents, which guarantees his natural-born citizenship regardless of where in the world his birth happened to take place. the laws concerning that go back to (AFAIK) 1790, which i guess is right near when the first U.S. ambassadors to other countries began to have children overseas, which would have forced matters.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | October 29, 2008 6:28 PM

H. H.,

It's idiots like you, who see racism in everything, even things they know nothing about (such as, for example, the fact that I am in an interacial marriage) --no doubt projecting your own racism, that causes others to be desensitized to actual racism.

Posted by: heddle | October 29, 2008 6:42 PM

I'm with dingoJ and gould here as a fellow downunderite. I've never read the sort of openly expressed rascism that's been put out by wingnuts in this american campaign anywhere. That given, there's more than a scent of desperation in it, "please dont vote for the scary black communist man or the world will end (as will our turn at the trough)". However I just came back from a contract job at Uluru and there was not one Aboriginal person working in the whole complex in the midst of Aboriginal land.

Posted by: yoyo | October 29, 2008 7:45 PM

That doesn't answer whether or not some black voters are voting for Obama simply because he is black. When you have numbers in the neighborhood of 90%, then there must be some explanation.

Actually there is a very simple, non racial explanation.

In 2000 90% of African Americans voted for Gore, 1% voted for Nader, 9% voted for Bush.

In 2004 88% of African Americans voted for Kerry.

By 1964, after African Americans shifted to the Democratic party, they voted 82% for Democrats. The number hasn't dropped below 80% since that time and has often spiked over 90% with the normal percentage being in the 87-88% range.

The "90% of African Americans are voting for Obama so they must be racist" meme is moronic and completely ignores the voting history of African Americans over the last 50 years.

Posted by: dogmeatib | October 29, 2008 8:06 PM

Well, that was truly horrifying.
I really do hope that Obama gets in, because it would be another step towards equality in the States, and then maybe you guys could think about bilingual balloting?
For all the hiccups, I think the world in general is making progress towards including minorities into parliaments. I don't think that crying "first (therefore better/less racist than you!)!" is really a constructive point. Who cares if your President is a Hispanic lesbian - if your infant mortality is still higher among Hispanics, and homosexuals are still not allowed to marry, then the problem has not been adequately addressed.

Posted by: Kozbob | October 29, 2008 8:12 PM

I can't wait for the religious racists to flip out when the next pope is selected from asia or africa.

Posted by: GoodTimes | October 29, 2008 9:12 PM

I have a feeling that a lot of Republicans sensed that this election was a losing proposition, and didn't want that taint on their records.

I have that feeling too. McCain, coming from behind? Not buying it.

Posted by: JED | October 29, 2008 9:21 PM

"Is Britain close to having a person of color from its former colonies as Prime Minister? Maybe an Indian or an African?'

Since then, of course, there has been a lot of immigration including of skilled people from many places. However, the children of the first immigrants are only just coming of an age when it is possible they could be in senior positions in the government (or industry, for that matter). I imagine in that respect it is similar to Puerto Ricans in the US.

Posted by: Richard Simons | October 29, 2008 9:31 PM

I had the distinct "honor" of meeting you on October 10 at the Kitzmiller Reunion. I was one of the plaintiffs. At that point you made it crystal clear that you would not be voting for either of the major party candidates for president; your reason for voting for a non-major party seemed to be that you wanted to be sure that they had certain percentage rights in the next election. I questioned your motives at that point as being basilcally "whimsical." So, simply, how can you question either candidate or their running mates (keep in mind that I am one of those terrible "liberals" and an Obama volunteer), when you are willing to piss your vote away just to make an elitist, non-consequential point?? I have this little bit of throw-up travel up my esophagus when I think that not only do we have to battle the Central PA conservatives, but there are those funny "just throw any idea out there" type of guy adding to their legions.

Posted by: Steven Stough | October 30, 2008 12:07 AM

jws (or 'Jaws' as I seem to always read it) raises an interesting point (perhaps for a new thread).
Why is it that America, that has always been a land of competing ideologies, has only two major parties? Why doesn't America have four major parties and many other smaller independent ones, for example? Could it be that the absence of preferential voting stifles voting for smaller parties because voters are unwilling to 'waste' their vote by endorsing a candidate that won't 'win' just to punish the larger parties?
Any thoughts? Ed, anyone? - curiously DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | October 30, 2008 2:58 AM

Yes, we need more place-settings provided at the table than just the two we currently have set for ourselves.

I find it hard to take most of the third-parties seriously when they can't be bothered to build up support at the local level, focusing on electing candidates for mayor, state representatives, and the like. This bottom-up approach takes a great deal of work and time, but it seems far more likely to result in a sustainable political party.

Posted by: Davis | October 30, 2008 4:58 AM

DingoJack:

By "preferential voting" I'm guessing you mean some sort of proportional representation? If so, then the Canadian example contradicts the hypothesis that an FPTP (First Past the Post) system favours a two-party system.

We've never had anything but FPTP, but in our just-finished general election we had four credible national parties and one regional party (the Bloc Quebecois, which runs candidates only in Quebec province). Four parties, the Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats (socialists) and the Bloc won seats. The fifth, the Greens, won none, though they garnered about 10% of the popular vote. Doesn't stop them trying, though.

Power alternates between the Conservative and Liberal parties, with the Liberals, until recently, being in power more often than not since the late '50s. The New Democrats perenially compete and get seats, but have never formed government. Like the American socialist party dogmeatib mentioned, they find their policies regularly getting stolen, usually by the Liberals, and so voters of a socialist persuasion often move that way; the motivation seems to be that it's better to get some decent policies than none, even if one has to swallow the centre party's corporate-friendly bent as part of the package.

Because of FPTP, voters often vote "strategically" to avoid splitting the centre-left vote, i.e. vote for their second choice (say, a New Democrat voting Liberal in a seat their own party can't hope to win), in order to stop their worst choice, usually a Tory, from coming up the middle and getting the seat.

Many of us would love, and have campaigned for, proportional representation, and one day we may get it. Yet even with FPTP we've had at least three major parties, and over the years a few credible regional parties, for a long, long time. I don't know why America has only two (it puzzles the heck out of Canucks, I'll tell you), but lack of proportional representation doesn't seem to be the reason.

Posted by: North of 49 | October 30, 2008 7:46 PM

Nah - here the WHOLE vote is counted, that is, it's not FPTP. It would seem to me in a FPTP style of race, over several time zones, any party that has strong support in the east is more likely to win, since the polls close there earliest and are counted first.
By preferential voting I mean if the party you voted for first doesn't have the numbers to win a seat, the party is 'crossed off' and their votes move to the the voters' second choice. If not the second choice the third and so on.
This has lead to roughly three major parties, Labor (leftist, "workers'" party), Liberal (centrist right, "middle-class" party since 1945) and the Nationals (right, "Farmers'" party, lately being displaced by the Greens), although the last two have formed a quasi-stable coalition. Occasionally you smaller parties, such as the now defunct Democrats (with the rather charming slogan of "Keeping the bastards honest"), the Greens (growing in popularity, especially in the urban left), and the long gone Democratic Labor Party (centerist offshoot of Labor). Plus plenty of independents, The Shooters' Party (no prizes for guessing their platform), Family First (Right-wing fundie nutjobs), One Nation (ditto), The Boating and Fishing Party and so on, right down to truly independent one man (or woman) parties fight on a single issue.
It is these small parties that end up holding the balance of power in the upper house (The Senate), a body elected by the voters, with equal numbers from each state and territory. {Former PM Paul Keating dismissed it as "unrepresentative swill"). The lower house (The House of Representatives) are elected proportionally by a preferential vote.
Elections are compulsory (that is: you have to go to vote, although you don't have to vote for anyone), failure to do so results in a fine of around $350 (in US terms).
The voting is done on a HUGE paper ballot form (last one was like a table cloth) for the lower house, and a smaller one for the upper house, marked with a pencil.
Voter registration is with the Electoral Commission (to verify your name and address) before the election, but they don't register how you might vote.
Vote registration and vote fraud is almost unheard of (although certainly NOT impossible).
If you were going to set-up a new country what system would you use? Which is fairest & why? - Again curiously DJ
PS Sorry about the essay.

Posted by: DingoJack | October 30, 2008 11:41 PM

Actually, DingoJack, the tablecloth ballot was for the Senate - the UPPER house - and the lower house is the house of Reps, the little green ballot.

And I recall spending about 10min poring over that senate ballot to make sure that I numbered all the little boxes ; preferred vote, preferred second vote, Family First last, and everyone else on the basis of how silly their name sounded.

We have IRV and STV.
I think it works well, but you have to watch your preferences a little bit, if you vote below the line.

Posted by: Kozbob | October 31, 2008 12:23 AM

Nah - here the WHOLE vote is counted, that is, it's not FPTP. It would seem to me in a FPTP style of race, over several time zones, any party that has strong support in the east is more likely to win, since the polls close there earliest and are counted first.
By preferential voting I mean if the party you voted for first doesn't have the numbers to win a seat, the party is 'crossed off' and their votes move to the the voters' second choice. If not the second choice the third and so on.
This has lead to roughly three major parties, Labor (leftist, "workers'" party), Liberal (centrist right, "middle-class" party since 1945) and the Nationals (right, "Farmers'" party, lately being displaced by the Greens), although the last two have formed a quasi-stable coalition. Occasionally you smaller parties, such as the now defunct Democrats (with the rather charming slogan of "Keeping the bastards honest"), the Greens (growing in popularity, especially in the urban left), and the long gone Democratic Labor Party (centerist offshoot of Labor). Plus plenty of independents, The Shooters' Party (no prizes for guessing their platform), Family First (Right-wing fundie nutjobs), One Nation (ditto), The Boating and Fishing Party and so on, right down to truly independent one man (or woman) parties fight on a single issue.
It is these small parties that end up holding the balance of power in the upper house (The Senate), a body elected by the voters, with equal numbers from each state and territory. {Former PM Paul Keating dismissed it as "unrepresentative swill"). The lower house (The House of Representatives) are elected proportionally by a preferential vote.
Elections are compulsory (that is: you have to go to vote, although you don't have to vote for anyone), failure to do so results in a fine of around $350 (in US terms).
The voting is done on a HUGE paper ballot form (last one was like a table cloth) for the lower house, and a smaller one for the upper house, marked with a pencil.
Voter registration is with the Electoral Commission (to verify your name and address) before the election, but they don't register how you might vote.
Vote registration and vote fraud is almost unheard of (although certainly NOT impossible).
If you were going to set-up a new country what system would you use? Which is fairest & why? - Again curiously DJ
PS Sorry about the essay.

Posted by: DingoJack | October 31, 2008 1:01 AM

Federal politics is much as DJ describes, though in smaller states the senate ballots aren't so tablecloth-sized. And you have the option of voting "above the line" for a straight party ticket.

We have even more fun with state level elections in Canberra, with the Hare-Clark system. http://www.elections.act.gov.au/education/factHC.html

We just had a state election a couple of weeks ago and we still don't know who won government! The actual seat count took about a week - 16 of the 17 seats were decided quickly but the last one took ages. The final result is Labor: 7 seats; Liberal: 6 seats; Green: 4 seats - but now the Greens are negotiating over who they will be in coalition with, and what they'll get in return for their support. Jolly fun!

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 31, 2008 7:16 AM

Is Germany about to have a son or daughter of a Turkish worker as its Chancellor? A Jew?

For the record, Austria has had a chancellor who was a Jew, though a very weird one (Bruno Kreisky).

Also, none of the minorities you list make up 13 % of the population, so the sheer probability of one of theirs running for any given office is much smaller...

It is my information that French President Sarkozys' father was a Hungarian count and his mother was a Greek Jew who grew up in North Africa.

Correct.

Hell, if I remember right such a party actually got the highest votes in Austria (although it was about 30% or so).

Austria currently has two xenophobic parties; they finished 3rd and 4th, but together they'd have been 1st, at over 30 %. Part of the reason for this scary result, though, is that these two parties simply got the protest vote; lots of people had enough of both the conservatives and the Social Democrats, who had been in a coalition government despite hating each other's guts...

No, Obama supporters, which you are vocally not among, are about to do something historic. You don't get to bask in the warm glow of tolerance when you plan on voting for the ticket with the hate-spewing creationist. Your candidate will be remembered for running a racist, ugly campaign. That's your legacy. America is moving forward despite people like you.

Well said.

Why is it that America, that has always been a land of competing ideologies, has only two major parties?

Because there's no separation between president and government; the president is the head of government, and the government depends on the president rather than on the parliament.

That means that the elections after which a new government is formed are elections for a person, and where only one person can win, there's a tendency for only two candidates having any real chances. Both candidates then accrue a party behind themselves... makes two parties in total.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 31, 2008 11:57 AM