[Lerkfish]

(thanks, jbartone for pointing out this link

It appears there's democracy, and then there's the american version of democracy for Iraq.
Interesting portions of the article (emphasis mine):

The United States administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has rejected a call by a senior Shiite leader for the direct election of a national government.

Mr Bremer ruled out any compromise on a deal reached in November between Washington and the US-appointed interim Iraqi Governing Council to set up a provisional government without elections.

Mr Bremer's comments were his answer to the latest rejection of the plan by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a figure revered by most of Iraq's 15-million Shiite Muslims.

....US officials said urgent meetings were held in Washington and Baghdad in the wake of the ayatollah's rejection of the Bush Administration's complex plans to hold caucuses around the country to select an interim legislature and executive in a newly self-governing Iraq. Officials say they are responding to the cleric's objections with a new plan that will open the caucuses to more people and make their workings more transparent.

The US continues to assert that elections cannot be held in time for the deadline of June 30, the target date for handing sovereignty over to a new Iraqi interim government.

.........The US's Iraqi allies also rejected demands for direct election. "We all want to implement democracy in Iraq, but we don't want to be hasty," said Hamid Kifai, spokesman for the leadership council.

.......The ayatollah, in a decree issued on Sunday, warned that the interim national government envisaged by Washington would be formed by an "illegitimate mechanism".

He predicted it would cause serious problems and a weakening of security and political stability.

Ayatollah Sistani has emerged as a big obstacle to the plans hammered out between Washington and its hand-picked Iraqi leadership.

US officials also expressed their fears about his demand that any agreement for US-led forces to remain in Iraq would have to be approved by directly elected representatives.

[jbartone]

They know that the Shia's would win in a national election, and are freaking out.

[Lerkfish]

This also just in:

Iraqi demonstrators call for elections

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Thousands of demonstrators marched through the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Thursday, calling for elections and more international involvement in their country, a British military spokesman said.

I know that supporters of the Iraq invasion were encouraged by the ability of the Iraqi people to demonstrate...there ya go! This sounds like considerably more than the 500 who danced in the streets after the invasion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[BIt appears there's democracy, and then there's the american version of democracy for Iraq.[/B]

How would you have direct elections without a constitution? That sounds like a recipe for "democracy" in the form of one man, one vote, one time. You will never have another election after that.

Given that reality, you really have two choices. One is to continue the occupation until the country has approved a constitution, and then hold elections. The other is to appoint a provisional government and have the provisional government write the constitution and hold the elections for a permanent government. This is pretty much what is being done in Afghanistan.

Of course, I suppose the other option is simply to leave and watch a civil war break out. I don't think that is a sensible alternative.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by jbartone:
They know that the Shia's would win in a national election, and are freaking out.

indeed. the most important line is the last one:

US officials also expressed their fears about his demand that any agreement for US-led forces to remain in Iraq would have to be approved by directly elected representatives.

US officials might be more concerned about being asked to leave than setting up a stable democracy. What does THAT tell us?

In order to reshape the middle east, US needs to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.
Anythings which might threaten that needs to be avoided, including direct elections.

[MacGorilla]

Soon as the US set a deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, they were screwed. They lost all their bargaining power. Now the Iraqis will just keep squeezing until they get what they want because they know the US really wants to leave bad.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Soon as the US set a deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, they were screwed. They lost all their bargaining power. Now the Iraqis will just keep squeezing until they get what they want because they know the US really wants to leave bad.

(sarcasm not directed at macGorilla) yeah, shame on them for wanting direct elections. What will they want next? their own government? We can't have that! (/sarcasm not directed at macGorilla)

[swrate]

Originally posted by jbartone:
They know that the Shia's would win in a national election, and are freaking out.

yes, I think so too, as it is in US's interest the Kurds take control; they will want "other" runners in the elections then the Shias.

[Joshua]

Given that there's no constitution, and no census has been taken, how would you propose conducting direct elections by the end of June?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by swrate:
yes, I think so too, as it is in US's interest the Kurds take control; they will want "other" runners in the elections then the Shias.

"in the US's interest" is the operative phrase here.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Given that there's no constitution, and no census has been taken, how would you propose conducting direct elections by the end of June?

no idea, i am sure they will find a way, and may procrastinate with more interim delegates
I think Iraq will take a long time before finding a balance, (another yougoslavia?) I wonder why the Arabic leaders are so little involved in this. Most think they are living in democracies, Iraqis thought that too.

I think it is also in Europe's interest (Turkey and other adjacent countries) that a "in majority Kurdish governement" be installed, even though logically it should be shia)
The US will need more men to take care of the situation in Iraq. Who better then the Kurds can do that work for them?

Whatever the solution may be, leaders should sit at a table for days to discuss the best way to deal with yet another explosive area.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Given that there's no constitution, and no census has been taken, how would you propose conducting direct elections by the end of June?

My opinion is that Its not up to me OR YOU to propose that.

You're assuming you need a constitution to hold an election: Were there no elected representatives before the US constitution? How else did it come to be drawn up?

the Iraqi people seem ready to take on that responsibilty, or at least to take it out of the hands of the US at any rate and place it in international control. There is precedent for the UN monitoring elections to make them workable in various countries.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be ready excuses for why the Iraqis should not vote, but darn little support for them to do so, but there is a "complex plan" already arrived at by Bush for guaranteeing the appointment of officials.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
My opinion is that Its not up to me OR YOU to propose that.

You're assuming you need a constitution to hold an election: Were there no elected representatives before the US constitution? How else did it come to be drawn up?

Are you seriously asking that question?

The framers of the constitution actually acted grossly outside of their authority. The Continental Congress only sent them to Philadelphia to tweak the Articles of Confederation. They turned around and wrote a whole new constitution.

So: the line of authority was back to the Continental Congress. In turn the Continental Congress was formed by state delegates from state legislatures. And finally, the state legislatures were bodies that were originally established by the colonial power. So actually, your analogy isn't that removed from the idea of a provisional government creating a constitution in Iraq. But of course, a parallel here is bound to be strained at best.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
My opinion is that Its not up to me OR YOU to propose that.

You're assuming you need a constitution to hold an election: Were there no elected representatives before the US constitution? How else did it come to be drawn up?

I don't think this is a good comparison: with a revolution you have an established (native) group of political figures to drive the process. The situation in Iraq is more in line with post-war Germany or Japan.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be ready excuses for why the Iraqis should not vote, but darn little support for them to do so, but there is a "complex plan" already arrived at by Bush for guaranteeing the appointment of officials.

Who's saying that Iraqi's shouldn't vote? Arguing that it'll take some time to do it right isn't the same as saying it shouldn't happen at all. That would be one of those "gross oversimplifications" that everyone hates.

[el chupacabra]

the iraqis could have a direct election of many representitives to write up their constitution. If i was in iraq i'd be scared of the constitution the US came up with. not only that but a constitution that fits in the US's eye may not work in iraq...only the iraqis know whats best for all.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course, I suppose the other option is simply to leave and watch a civil war break out. I don't think that is a sensible alternative.

There ya go with false dichotomies again.

A far more reasonable alternative to appointing a provisional government would be to begin laying the ground work for the future Republic we've been chirping about so happily all these months.

Let each state and region elect a delegate to the provisional authority which also includes delegates from the CPA.

A Constitution is a worthy goal, but its not a magic elixir. The Soviet Union had one of the most beautiful constitutions I've ever read which included far more expansive declarations of Rights than the US version. Or the states that functioned for centuries with no constitution at all.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There ya go with false dichotomies again.

A far more reasonable alternative to appointing a provisional government would be to begin laying the ground work for the future Republic we've been chirping about so happily all these months.

Let each state and region elect a delegate to the provisional authority which also includes delegates from the CPA.

A Constitution is a worthy goal, but its not a magic elixir. The Soviet Union had one of the most beautiful constitutions I've ever read which included far more expansive declarations of Rights than the US version. Or the states that functioned for centuries with no constitution at all.

I'm all for another alternative, just as long as it isn't the usual "wave a magic wand" alternative that we see here so often. Whatever happens in Iraq is going to have to be grounded in reality, not wishful thinking. That means things will probably be more complicated, not less, and will have to take into consideration the reality that this could easily devolve into civil war or a tyrranical regime.

My point above was that the basic choice comes down to removing the occupation sooner, which means in advance of elections. Or waiting until after elections, but continuing the occupation until after the necessary institutions for democracy are in place. It's important to remember that an election does not a democracy make. An election is a necessary part of what makes a working democracy, but it isn't by itself sufficient. Lots of quite undemocratic countries have held elections.

Maybe your suggestion of a representative conference would be possible. Of course, that is more or less what the Coaltion tried to establish. In any case, it certainly recognizes the important fact that for Iraq to have a chance at a democracy, all the major ethnic groups and regions will have to be protected and feel part of the structure. That means in particular, you can't just hand over all power to the Shia, even, or perhaps especially because, they are the majority group.

Your point about countries not having constitutions is, I think, a little too narrow. Some countries have gone without written constitutions. But that isn't the same thing as not having a constitution. Basically, a constitution is really just an agreed-upon set of rules for how power is to be handled. The UK, for example, does that mainly by means of centuries of evolved practice. That's a constitution just as much as America's or Germany's written ones are. Unfortunatley, the UK variety of unwritten constitution isn't something you can create overnight, so most newer constitutions are written. In any case, the rules have to exist whether written or not, and that requires thinking about and a lot of discussion in order to do it right.

Your point about the Soviet constitution is well taken. But to me it just argues for taking things a little slower rather than quicker. The more you rush things, the more likely that some group will sieze power and run things their way no matter what the consititution says.

[BRussell]

Well I suppose it's a good thing that the Shiite clerics have become such huge democrats now.

Anyone else just have a really bad feeling about the whole thing? I think holding elections right now, before basic rights have really been guaranteed, is just about the worst thing that could happen. Unfortunately, the US staying there, being seen to "stand in the way of democracy" is probably even worse.

Nation building. Huh.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your point about countries not having constitutions is, I think, a little too narrow. Some countries have gone without written constitutions. But that isn't the same thing as not having a constitution. Basically, a constitution is really just an agreed-upon set of rules for how power is to be handled. The UK, for example, does that mainly by means of centuries of evolved practice. That's a constitution just as much as America's or Germany's written ones are.

Interesting point. I guess we could say then that Iraq has a de facto constitution since around 1912. Power is handled by whomever the UK or US decide.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your point about the Soviet constitution is well taken. But to me it just argues for taking things a little slower rather than quicker. The more you rush things, the more likely that some group will sieze power and run things their way no matter what the consititution says.

Too late. Somebody already has seized power and is running things their way no matter what. And they are going to form a written constitution that probably will codify their way of doing things in their interests no matter what.

[BlackGriffen]

I'm in the "take the time and do it right, darn it," camp.

Frankly, though, I don't know how much time is reasonable and necessary to get the necessary structures in place. The rabble rousing of the powerful Shia is of questionable orgin. It smells like a power grab, to me. This does mean that whatever is done, it should be done asap. I seriously doubt that they have enough time to do a proper census. It may be possible, though, to estimate populations in cities/regions roughly and then have them elect a number of delegates at large proportional to the population. These delegates could then convene to write the constitution. The only role the U.S. should play in the forming of the constitution is twofold - one, make sure that there are adequate protections for minority populations; two, make sure that the military is placed under the control of some elected official. Beyond that, I don't think that the U.S. has the right to dictate what form the economy is to take, or the structure of the government, or anything else.

I seriously doubt that this will happen, though. I see at least four sides involved (Shia, Suuni, Kurds, and the U.S.) and none of the movers & shakers on any side have pure intentions.

Bush's deadline, too, seems to be more driven by electoral concerns in the U.S. than the reality of what's happening on the ground. Here's hoping he pulls his head out before then and realizes that getting this one right is more important than whether he loses or keeps his job.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Here's hoping he pulls his head out before then and realizes that getting this one right is more important than whether he loses or keeps his job.

BlackGriffen

nothing is more important to him than reelection.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm all for another alternative, just as long as it isn't the usual "wave a magic wand" alternative that we see here so often.

Who walked the US through the development of it's democracy?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Who walked the US through the development of it's democracy?

Great Britain.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Great Britain.

I have to assume you actually typed France but your post was intercepted by the Patriot Police and changed to comply with Republican directives.



Seriously, though. How is Great Britain the father of US democracy?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


I have to assume you actually typed France but your post was intercepted by the Patriot Police and changed to comply with Republican directives.



Seriously, though. How is Great Britain the father of US democracy?

Broadly speaking, Colonial America had legislatures that were representative. It was only the governors who were appointed in London. In most day-to-day government, the colonies were governed locally. The tax issues that gave rise to the revolution were basically disputes between the local American legislatures (e.g. the Virginia House of Burgesses) and Parliament over who had the power to tax the colonists. After the revolution, those unicameral legislatures remained and local governors replaced the appointed ones. Then a little later most of the newly independent states rewrote their constitutions.

In addition to this, there is the not insignificant fact that the colonists were raised in the British parliamentary tradition. The ideas that became American weren't plucked out of thin air. They came mostly from Britain. The rights that the Colonists claimed were those of Englishmen. It was only reluctantly that they moved towards independence. When they did, it was to enjoy the rights they felt that that they had been deprived of, not to invent anything especially new.

Sorry for the lecture. I'm taking an early American legal history class at the moment.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Broadly speaking, Colonial America had legislatures that were representative. It was only the governors who were appointed in London. In most day-to-day government, the colonies were governed locally. The tax issues that gave rise to the revolution were basically disputes between the local American legislatures (e.g. the Virginia House of Burgesses) and Parliament over who had the power to tax the colonists. After the revolution, those unicameral legislatures remained and local governors replaced the appointed ones. Then a little later most of the newly independent states rewrote their constitutions.

In addition to this, there is the not insignificant fact that the colonists were raised in the British tradition of democracy. The ideas that became American weren't plucked out of thin air. They came mostly from Britain. The rights that the Colonists claimed were those of Englishmen. It was only reluctantly that they moved towards independence. When they did, it was to enjoy the rights they felt that that they had been deprived of, not to invent anything especially new.

Sorry for the lecture. I'm taking an early American legal history class at the moment.

And from where I sit the soul of the revolution is entirely opposed to the foundation of British government--Divine Right.

While the bureaucracy and legal systems might be largely inspired by Great Britian's, the Declaration of Independence is a categorical rejection of the foundation of Great Britian's form of governance.

So I see France as the ideological partner of America's political experiment.

Not to mention their monetary and military support which made the revolution possible.

[dtriska]

I don't know nearly enough about American history to make grand pronunciations on the nuances of the development of US government, but I do find how it turned out rather interesting.

The legal and legislative branches are very similar to the British traditions (common law, representation by population, etc.) although the US Senate is now elected instead of appointed (by states, I believe was how it was done).

That really just leaves the executive that differs in any great sense from Britain, and ever there there are similarities. The US Cabinet is appointed and operates much like the cabinets found in other countries such as Canada or the UK, and even the president has taken on a prestige and power not unlike that of a monarch. Sure, a lot of the change was necessary over time, but I still find it funny that Americans rejected the monarchy in the 1700s, only to develop its own form of royalty in later years. Sure, there aren't really any lines of inheritance or anything like that; I'm thinking more along the lines of little things like how everyone is supposed to stand when the president enters the room, and criticism of the president is akin to heresy to some Americans. Things like that.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your point about the Soviet constitution is well taken. But to me it just argues for taking things a little slower rather than quicker. The more you rush things, the more likely that some group will sieze power and run things their way no matter what the consititution says.

This sums up the entire past year and a half quite nicely.



Now comes the crux of America and Great Britain's undertaking, the true test of commitment, capability, and competence - despite all of Kindbud's posturing about pure military prowess.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And from where I sit the soul of the revolution is entirely opposed to the foundation of British government--Divine Right.

While the bureaucracy and legal systems might be largely inspired by Great Britian's, the Declaration of Independence is a categorical rejection of the foundation of Great Britian's form of governance.

So I see France as the ideological partner of America's political experiment.

Not to mention their monetary and military support which made the revolution possible.

The British, and Americans by the time of the Revolution did not see the foundation of the British constitution as divine right. That's more associated with the Royalists of the English Civil War. That idea died when Charles lost his head. The other tradition is that of Parliament and the Commons. After the restoration, the power of the monarchy was limited and much power was retained by Parliament (where much of it had traditionally been anyway, before James 1). For example, the power to raise taxes was Parliament's. So England had a very strong tradition of government by the Commons, and this was the tradition that the Colonists would have understood and drawn upon directly when they established their new independent nation.

The early Americans would have associated France with the Divine Right of Kings. Objectively, it is debateable whether the French monarchy was any more absolute than the English. But they wouldn't have seen it that way. To the Colonists, the French had an absolute monarchy, the British, a monarchy that was limited by the competing power of Parliament. For example, when William and Mary were given the throne after the Glorious Revolution, they had to agree to the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Rights. Those acts severely limited the power of the Monarchy.

Your ideological partner comment is, I'm afraid, not really supported by the chronology. Montesquieu may have been French, but the French government was not in any way an ideological partner of the American Revolution. Don't forget that the American Revolution preceded the French one. The French government at that time was a monarchy. They didn't support the Americans because of ideological sympathy with the idea of Republican government. They supported them because they had a common enemy.

[boots]

Sorry, not much to add to the discussion except that I'm enjoying this particular thread.

As for the census and how they can hold elections without one, the proposal is to use the old food rationing lists. While not as thorough as a census, it is probably pretty reasonable.

I should also point out to Lerk that the only branch of our national government that is elected by direct vote is the legislature. The executive has the electoral college and the courts are appointed. So really, I think your aversion to the idea of an "appointed" constitutional delegation is, perhaps, overdone...even if it is understandable (from my perspective).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
Sorry, not much to add to the discussion except that I'm enjoying this particular thread.

As for the census and how they can hold elections without one, the proposal is to use the old food rationing lists. While not as thorough as a census, it is probably pretty reasonable.

I should also point out to Lerk that the only branch of our national government that is elected by direct vote is the legislature. The executive has the electoral college and the courts are appointed. So really, I think your aversion to the idea of an "appointed" constitutional delegation is, perhaps, overdone...even if it is understandable (from my perspective).

I understand your point, as its filtered through american eyes.

but, since the Iraqis are demonstrating for the right to vote, I think its more harmful to deny them the opportunity than to worry about how they might mess it up.

After all, we are trying to win their "hearts and minds". A great deal of THAT battle involves perception. If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you rather, as an Iraqi, be allowed to make your mistakes in this instance?

[davesimondotcom]

I think that the Iraqis should get to vote for their leaders. But, in order to do so, there has to be a system to vote them into, correct? And in order to prevent fraud, there has to be some way to identify who is voting, whether they are actually a citizen, etc.

It's sort of a chicken or egg thing - which comes first, the office or voting someone into that office?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your ideological partner comment is, I'm afraid, not really supported by the chronology. Montesquieu may have been French, but the French government was not in any way an ideological partner of the American Revolution. Don't forget that the American Revolution preceded the French one. The French government at that time was a monarchy. They didn't support the Americans because of ideological sympathy with the idea of Republican government. They supported them because they had a common enemy.

When I said it was an ideological partner, I was talking more about French culture and philosophy rather than the government. Natural Right took hold in France before it took hold anywhere else-popular support I mean.

So the colonists were inspired by ideals that were wildly popular in France, not Great Britan.

Secondly, without France's material and political support, the revolution aruably goes nowhere.

So while the colonists were obviously atuned to cultural elements of Great Britan's legal and beraucratic traditions, the heart and soul (not to mention the guns and means) all came from France.

So I think it would be much more accurate to suggest that France was the nation that held America's hand into Independence and Democracy, as the US is hoping to do for Iraq.

But I wouldn't challenge you to a dual over it.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I understand your point, as its filtered through american eyes.

but, since the Iraqis are demonstrating for the right to vote, I think its more harmful to deny them the opportunity than to worry about how they might mess it up.

After all, we are trying to win their "hearts and minds". A great deal of THAT battle involves perception. If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you rather, as an Iraqi, be allowed to make your mistakes in this instance?

True. And I'm not discounting that. I think this just highlights how nuanced even basic politics and government are. The devil really is in the details. There ARE dangers in a fledgling state in being turned loose. (And I don't mean a danger of them deciding something we don't like.) The sad part is that many (most) Americans don't understand the idea of how the system was set up...

It was through a period of serious introspection and painstaking foresight that led to our current mess. I think the way things in Afgahnistan are going is pretty telling. The Loya Jirga, at least by the accounts I've heard, was a great example of the complications involved. Sounds like it was pretty successful too. It isn't as simple as one person/one vote. I think that's the model that we would like to se used in Iraq also, but we handcuffed ourselves by promising a date without having a caucus formed. It just didn't go as smoothly in the workings.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
When I said it was an ideological partner, I was talking more about French culture and philosophy rather than the government. Natural Right took hold in France before it took hold anywhere else-popular support I mean.

So the colonists were inspired by ideals that were wildly popular in France, not Great Britan.

I don't think that is true. The clearest line from academic philosophy to the founding documents of the Republic are those of John Locke, who was very much an Englishman. Locke, by the way, wrote the Georgia Constitution. There is no doubt about his influence. The Founding Fathers basically plagiarized him. Most famously, his life liberty and Property was used verbatim by Jefferson. Franklin (the Declaration's editor) changed it to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. I wonder what Locke thought about that?

Other influences include Edmund Burke and Sir Edward Coke. Montesquieu is the really big French influence, along perhaps with Rousseau. But by and large, the American Revolutionaries were rather English in outlook, which isn't surprising considering that they were English (or at least, British). The point is that as British colonists, they were well versed in democratic traditions and were well experienced in democratic self-government. Most of the Founding Fathers had served in colonial legislatures. That's why they were appointed to the Continental Congress. Other than the Continental Congress itself, They didn't make these institutions up, they simply adapted the ones that they already had. Those institutions were British. That's why I say that Britain was the midwife of American democracy, albeit inadvertantly.

Maybe the reason it is easy to overlook this is because we tend to leap ahead to the Constitution, which was much more of a break with colonial government. But that was some 11 years in the future.

[thunderous_funker]

But Locke's ideas didn't shake anything up in England while they started a revolution in America and France.

He was English, but his ideas took root elsewhere long before they came home to influence Great Britain.

At least, that is always the impression I've always held.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But Locke's ideas didn't shake anything up in England while they started a revolution in America and France.

He was English, but his ideas took root elsewhere long before they came home to influence Great Britain.

At least, that is always the impression I've always held.

Maybe. But the question posed by Wiskedjak was: "Who walked the US through the development of it's democracy?" My answer was it was Great Britain, through its colonial, and cultural influence.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Maybe. But the question posed by Wiskedjak was: "Who walked the US through the development of it's democracy?" My answer was it was Great Britain, through its colonial, and cultural influence.

And I would still answer France because of its ideological and material support of the revolution.

Even if the ideological connections were dubious, the revolution is stillborn without French guns, ammo, traning, naval support and money.

But I think you make a very good point about Great Britian's inadvertant midwifery.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I would still answer France because of its ideological and material support of the revolution.

Even if the ideological connections were dubious, the revolution is stillborn without French guns, ammo, traning, naval support and money.

But I think you make a very good point about Great Britian's inadvertant midwifery.

Thanks but I still think that because we are talking here about the midwifery of American democracy, it is to Britain and its influences that you have to look, not to the French monarchy who supported the Revolution for non-ideological reasons. If the question were who helped the most toward American independence the answer would be France because obviously without France, American independence would have been snuffed out.

But that isn't the question, and that does change the answer.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think that the Iraqis should get to vote for their leaders. But, in order to do so, there has to be a system to vote them into, correct? And in order to prevent fraud, there has to be some way to identify who is voting, whether they are actually a citizen, etc.

It's sort of a chicken or egg thing - which comes first, the office or voting someone into that office?

There's a way to pull it off, but you lose part of the anonymity of the vote in the process. Literally, you have people vote with their bodies, all at the same time, all over Iraq. The simplest way to do that would be to have people gather in large meeting rooms or auditoriums, and then gather around a sign with the name and picture of who they want to vote for. Count the people, and away we go.

The problem with this approach is that there is zero anonymity. Some anonymity can be recovered by having the Iraqis go through a hall, one by one, and into rooms for the candidate they support. Then, at least, people who voted for the other guy can't see you. That method is easily subverted to some extent by informants, but it is possible to limit rats to what they can remember.

Another possibility is to have the Iraqis gather in voting area that gets sealed off once voting is to begin. Then, each Iraqi simply casts a vote as they leave (mechanism of voting tbd). This way actually keeps anonymity.

So, it seems to me, that by permitting Iraqis to enter a "polling area" and then sealing that area off just before voting is to begin nationwide, you can prevent the most significant forms of voter fraud. People who are slightly underage and foreign nationals would be able to vote, but I don't think that they would be able to have a serious impact on elections, especially if all sides do it and/or the elections are kept local.

Just a couple ideas.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think that the Iraqis should get to vote for their leaders. But, in order to do so, there has to be a system to vote them into, correct? And in order to prevent fraud, there has to be some way to identify who is voting, whether they are actually a citizen, etc.

It's sort of a chicken or egg thing - which comes first, the office or voting someone into that office?

If so, then starting with either the chicken or the egg would be acceptable.
You're arguing for a chicken, I'm arguing for an egg...but only because that's the only preference expressed thus far by the Iraqis.

but in the end, the real question is why Iraqis aren't being given the decision for chicken or egg? why are we the ones deciding that?

(I edited to add): This all sounds a great deal like we're speaking of Iraqis as if they were underage retarded children, incapable of making decisions for themselves.... They had a cruel despot, but that did not make them as a nation mentally challenged. In fact, I would argue the worst risk that can happen from holding elections now would be voter fraud. But Haven't we and the UN intervened in the past in other countries to oversee elections for just that very concern?

And, even if they end up with a fraudulent election where the majority's choice did not make it into office, well then, they'd be following in America's footsteps (/joke)

[Myriad]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wonder what Locke thought about that?

Seeing as how he'd been dead for nearly three quarters of a century, I doubt it really irked him that much.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Myriad:
Seeing as how he'd been dead for nearly three quarters of a century, I doubt it really irked him that much.

Oops! Good point. I should have said what would he have thought about that.

Also, to clarify, he wrote Georgia's colonial charter. I said constitution, which is wrong.