It seems to me that we get rid of our politicians not by epuration, but by suppuration from the body politic.wwh

And while it is a more scholarly term than "ethnic cleansing" its implementation has been equally criminal.

Ick--but sometimes true. Would you please explain a bit further what you mean by criminal? Do you mean we've gotten rid of politicians by criminal methods?

Do you mean we've gotten rid of politicians by criminal methods?

Maybe ... but you certainly selected your current Prez through the courts, and it looks like Mrs Clinton's little boy Willie isn't exactly out of the woods yet, either.

I meant that Tito's genocide and Milosevic's are both criminal, though one was called epuration and the other ethnic cleansing.

you certainly selected your current Prez through the courts

Far be it from me to do so, but I simply must disagree with this assertion. I don't want to bring up the recent election anymore than you do, but I really must clear this up.

I realize that the popular belief is that the US Supreme Court chose Bush as president, but this is simply not true. I'll agree with anyone that they stopped the recounts, because that is true, but it was neccessary and proper. The means by which Florida was counting their votes was entirely subjective and very controversial. They had no state-wide standard whatsoever regarding what was a vote and what was not. Therefore, each district was counting the votes differently, which is obviously unfair. And how in the world can a ballot with a slightly bulged, but not at all punched through, chad be considered a vote? In Ohio, we have specific standards. A chad can be counted if it's hanging on by one corner, but not two or three.

Secondly, the fact that they were only recounting certain counties was a statistician's nightmare. There is a certain known percent of votes that are obviously not going to be counted for a certain reason. When they're counted by a computer state-wide, these statistics remain even and everything is fair. But when you start counting votes only in certain counties, here heavily Democratic counties, you're invariably going to come up with more votes for the Democratic candidate because more votes over all in that county were cast for that person. They may have been trying to get the true intent of the American people, but only in a few counties. Had the votes been subjectively counted in Republican counties I'm sure more new votes for Bush would have been found.

So, in conclusion, it was perfectly sensibly and logical for the Supreme Court to stop the subjective counting of votes in Florida.

And so far, Bush's presidency is going very well. He's delegating power like a true business leader. Dick Cheney is going to have more say in things than any other VP before and he's not afraid to make assertive, long-term decisions because he has no intention of running for president. The current administration is comfortable and moving smoothly.

And this concludes the AWAD Political Week in Review.

Any Democrats on the board?

Dear Jazz,
As a foreigner, I refrain from commenting on the qualities of either candidate. But from a purely statistical point of view, Bush was neither elected by the courts nor by the people, but by accident.

Any Democrats on the board?
-----------------------------------
Don't know about that but here's one very independent Independent who has voted in every primary but one (we were overseas and that's not allowed) and voted in every Presidential and every off-year election since the Eisenhower election!
So I have earned the right to compliments AND complaints.
wow

Question: Did Al Gore get epurated?

DEMOCRAT, LIBERAL, OLD-STYLE

Yes, I am not only the above, but getting fed up with Teddy Kennedy because he's grown too conservative these last few years. I may be one of the last old-style liberal Democrats, but, as Popeye used to say, I yam what I yam AND PROUD OF IT!!!!

Jazz -- all I have to say to you is, if you believe all that guff you gave out with, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

A Liberal is a guy willing to give away your money.

I say we all go to a Pub, get hammered, and then discuss politics, because (a) nobody gave me a good reason to not do so when I started with this board (I'm with you BYB) (b) It seems at least we'll all think we make sense (Jazz - paragraph #1 and #4 are a bit contradicting...) and (c) anyone who couldn't agree to disagree would slowly learn the meaning of "subjectivity"... (pardon my opinion)(BTW-I refuse to put forth any more responses in this context)

if you believe all that guff you gave out with

What, I'm not supposed to believe fact?

-subjective counting
-no standards
-heavily Democratic counties
-statistician's nightmare

all of those are solid facts, my friend

Plus, the Florida Suporeme Court is quite well known for being the single most liberal court in the US.

http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/

That's all I'm saying.

Hi William,
This is indeed a good question to bring the discussion back to reasonable proportions: Nobody in their right mind would say Gore got "epurated". You would need a monolithic doctrine to define what "pure" and "impure" are to signify. Quite apart from its desirability, there is no trace of such a doctrine. I think the problems with the election arose not from lack of democracy, but from excessive expectations put in its basic rules. Democracy, while a necessary condition, is no replacement for leadership.

Democracy, while a necessary condition, is no replacement for leadership

That's good and pithy, Werner. Do you have a published work we can cite when quoting you?

Do you have a published work we can cite when quoting you?

You may quote W. Sieber and M. Fischer, J. Mater. Sci. (1993), 28(6), 1639-44. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand (who cares?), but it is one of the few published "works" of mine.

W. Sieber and M. Fischer

you published something with Tsuwm?

The election in Florida, etc. An open note to Jazzoctopus.
I wasn't at first inclined to reply to your reply, as I know for sure this isn't the forum for political debate. We have better fish to fry here, and there are plenty of other places to go to indulge your taste for partisan politics. I have no more to say on the issue at hand, but I do have a couple things I want to say to you, Jazz, and also for the benefit of the rest of our cyber community.

Firstly, I commend you for having a real commitment to the principles of our government, for the amount of time and trouble you obviously devote to learning the issues and facts of our political scene, and for the skill with which you express yourself. Frequently, one begins to despair of the future of our species when you look around and see the miserable excuses for human beings that hang around on street corners, malls and other adolescent haunts, not to mention the ones being locked up in distressing numbers for crimes ranging from nuisance to capital grade, while at the same time 50 guilty ones go free for each one put away, because there are too many to successfully prosecute. Then we come across someone like yourself. It's a joy to see a young person with a passion for something, maybe for a number of things/causes/interests. No great objective, or even a small personal one, was ever accomplished, or ever will be accomplished, without someone, or a number of individuals, with a passionate devotion to seeing it accomplished. So, don't let anyone or any setbacks, diminish that passion until it has run its course.

Of course, speaking as a member of the community, you have to realize that the passionate individual can be, and usually is, a real pain in the ass to everyone else. It's your responsibility, as a gentleman, to minimize this (I don't say avoid it entirely, because that's impossible). This will take, on your part, a lot of toleration for the views of others, however repugnant they may be to you. You have to do what does not come naturally to someone your age -- LISTEN, really listen not just pretend, to the other side, and make a genuine effort to see your opponent's view. Then, if you still disagree, do it like a gentleman. I think you really know what I'm getting at here.

Lastly, please keep in mind, that passion, while useful and even often necessary, is counterproductive, and even highly dangerous, if not governed by principle, good sense, and good taste. Some of the worst crimes in human history have been committed by people who let themselves be overmastered by their passion for what started out as a good cause. And every day, there are people whose dreams, projects, businesses and even their personal lives, are crashing down in failure because they will not, or can not, impose on their passions the limits which humanity, principle, morality, common sense, or good manners dictate.

Here endeth the sermon. Personally, I'm glad to have you around and I encourage you to keep on giving us the view of an enlightened young member of our community, even if I don't agree with your views, and I certainly won't agree often on politics. On other subjects, we probably have more in common than you would imagine.

Bob, I...am near-speechless with wonder, at the veracity,
kindness, and damn common sense of your "sermon".
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
A deep bow to you, my friend.

>DEMOCRAT, LIBERAL, OLD-STYLE

I'm glad to find a US liberal, they seem to be rather thin on the ground.

In the UK, the term refers to people who are fairly middle of the road. In the US, I believe it means left of centre. From my point of view, as an outsider to American politics, I was always amazed at this distinction. To me, both the Democrats and Republicans are very far to the right of the parties that can be found in Europe, let alone the UK. In the UK the "Liberal Democrats" (Lib Dems) is the name of the third largest party in the House of Commons, regarded as being in between our two main parties, except on electoral reform, where they are more strongly in favour of change than the other parties.

Here's a link to an old discussion on the subject, although I feel that both our main parties are moving further to the right these days.
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=1026

An open note to Jazzoctopus

Thank you for your kind words. They are much appreciated.

I too am rather annoyed by the heavily visible minority that seems to be giving my generation at bad reputation. Most of us really aren't that bad. . . at least I don't think we are. Most people I know aren't as interested in learning as I am either, though. I guess that makes me a nerd or, as my English teacher would prefer, a renaissance man.

Excuse my political outburts. I guess I just like to argue sometimes. My school needs a debate club. . . I'm not really as staunchly republican as I appear. More leaning toward libertarian, I think. My dad is basically a Republican and my mom is a Democrat. Election time is very interesting in my family.

>Excuse my political outburts. I guess I just like to argue sometimes.

Yes, so do I, there just don't seem to be enough places around for a good healthy argument any more. I think the number of people who yawn when politics is mentioned is rising in all age groups. I suspect it is because of over-exposure in the media. I can see why people turn to the sporting pages. Its a shame.

I see we're way off again, but.

I can see why people turn to the sporting pages

GAH! Sports is just as bad. (The relevant section of our newspaper is called Sports. That's why the singular verb.)
Now, if there's somebody playing that I know, I go crazy.
But why on earth should I get excited about a bunch of
strangers charging up and down?

But why on earth should I get excited about a bunch of
strangers charging up and down?

Why indeed!

Kiwi asks: "Any Democrats on the board?"

Sorry, I'm a Royalist.

"But why on earth should I get excited about a bunch of
strangers charging up and down?"

Uhhhh... Because of breathtaking speed, stamina, skill and strategy?

-- Basketball Jones, I got a basketball Jones....

In the UK, the term refers to people who are fairly middle of the road. In the US, I believe it means left of centre. From my point of view, as an outsider to American politics, I was always amazed at this distinction.

Or, as a Canadian told me, "The Loony Left." I am a registered Independent, because I believe in the etymological significance of the word, "liberal." Does it not mean "free?" Does it not imply an impartiality, or an ability and willingness to examine issues on both sides, and then decide on the better course? Democrats were called "people willing to spend your money," and I've considered Republicans to be people keen on making other people's money their own. (See the play, "Other People's Money" by Jerry Steiner, NOT the movie of the same title)

I think it was Rousseau who said, "Though I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it." THAT, IMHO, is a truly liberal statement, and it's written into the US Constitution's Bill of Rights!

"Though I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

As a child I asked my Grandfather to explain the difference between Republican and Democrat.
Grandfater : "One opens the safe with a prayer, the other opens the safe with dynamite."
Child : "Which one is which, Grampa?"
Grandfather : "Exactly."
Which is why I am an Independant!
wow

For all the Worker Bees who have not taken off for the long President's Day wekkend in USA, and who are here at the Board where they really belong you may enjoy a visit to : www.Speakout.com/VoteMatch where you can take a test to see which of the US presidential candidates most closely matches your views. This might be fun for those living in other countries. I just checked and it's still in operation. It will also give you your political philosophy category a la US! Have fun.
wow

I had a play with this a few weeks ago (thanks Wow), and it told me that I would be voting for Ralph Nader. I guess, in American terms, that puts me firmly with what is known as the Loony Left. Interestingly enough in Zild political terms I'm slighty right of centre. What does that make our left, then?

>I guess, in American terms, that puts me firmly with what is known as the Loony Left. Interestingly enough in Zild political terms I'm slighty right of centre.

My point precisely! [grin] I think that the same would be true in Australia, Britain and certainly the vast majority of Europe! This is one of the reasons why I think "liberal" means left in the US and to me (I won't speak for others) it means MOR.

PS My results were not surprising - 89% Ralph Nader, Joseph Leiberman 66%, Al Gore 62%, George W Bush 16% (worrying that one!) and I didn't even express a preference on some domestic issues that I didn't know enough about, eg "the three strikes rule". In the UK, I'd describe myself as a little to the left of centre, where does that put those who are more left wing than me! I just hope that this is enough to put me on someone's "worrying troublemaker" list - I'll never get a visa again!

>who have not taken off for the long President's Day weekend in USA

Wot, another holiday!? It really is very, very quiet around here!

Dear jmh,
Yes, and we really look forward to it here in North East USA ... a long weekend in middle of winter to do what you like. It's Presidents Day ... which is a combined celebration. We used to have Lincoln on Feb 12 (some observed with day off, some didn't) and Washington's birthday (everyone observed) on Feb. 22.
There was a hullabaloo some years ago about holidays falling on inconvenient (mid-week) days so a lot were mooshed together so we have more long weekends.
(They haven't had the nerve to mess with the Fourth of July or Christmas yet but I'm keeping an eagle eye on them!)
I miss everybody too. If they don't come back soon I may have to do some work or vacuum the house (HORRORS )
wow

the long President's Day

Thanks for your explanation for non-US'ns, wow. Had me worried earlier - figured it must be something to do with Big Bill Clinton

The Green Party got Nader to run partly because of his name recognition. The GP would be eligible for federal "matching funds" for campaigning if they got a certain percentage of the popular vote. Don't ask .. I've forgotten the % and whether not they made it.

Three Strikes rule ... if someone is convicted of three felonies they MUST go to prison for life (I think)
For more info you'll just have to search ... it's a holiday and I ain't agonna get serious.
wow

wow said: "The Green Party would be eligible for federal "matching funds" for campaigning if they got a certain percentage of the popular vote. Don't ask .. I've forgotten the % and whether not they made it."

It was a measly 5%, and matching funds were achieved only in enlightened states like Minnesota and Oregon.

Call me the Loony Left, call me a throwaway voter, just don't call me late for dinner!

enlightened states like Minnesota

Ah yes, where they elect professional wrestlers governor.

And it's a little strange that they would give Nader more than 5% when their governor was in the Reform party, which is generally considered farther right than the Republicans.

jazz, this chart represents the minnesota political spectrum:

wellstone<---------------------------------------->grams

                           |
                           |
                           |
                         ventura

>wellstone<---------------------------------------->grams etc

Thanks to "Atomica" I could just about follow that. Sadly the "Source For Official Jesse Ventura Merchandise" was closed for remodelling so I wasn't able to purchase a souvenir. What's all this about independence for Minnesota? Perhaps we should get the twinning committees out and see if we can twin Minnesota with Scotland?

registered independent
No matter what my political opinions might be at the moment, or who might be running for what party, I would never register as an independent. In this state, as in most states, an independent can not vote in a primary election. This is a real loss, since in many areas, most elections are decided in the primaries. When I was in college, my official residence (for voting purposes) was in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a well-to-do area about 90 percent Republican. No Democrat ever got elected to anything there, and if you were not registered as a Republican you couldn't vote in the primary. Since I wanted to vote against Rep. Francis Walter, the chairman of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, I registered as a Republican, although I had every intention to vote for the Democrat candidate for president (JFK) in the general election.

The situation is reversed in Maryland, where I live. Republicans hardly every get elected to anything in Baltimore, but there are Republicans trying to, and it matters which Republicans win nomination in the primary election. Registered Republicans and Democrats get to pick their respective candidates in the primaries and can then vote for whichever they like in the general election, but independents have to choose from the candidates the others have picked.

In reply to:

---

an independent can not vote in a primary election. This is a real loss, since in many areas, most elections are decided in the primaries.

---

yes, true in NY too, I am registered as "democrat"-- but have gone to "fund raisers" for Republicans-- but generally think of my self as a liberal! NY does have the peculiar "rockerfelleer rebublicans" who are sometimes more liberal than democrates, or the liberals!

real decisions are often made in the primaries-- last year, i voted "late" after work at about 7PM, and was the 87th voter in my district (a large district!) to vote in the primary. 1 primary vote is equal to about 10 !

It very rare for me to vote "straight line" --that is all the candidate from one party.

Thanks for that, Bob and Helen - it makes several facets of USA politics clearer to me that I have always struggled to fully understand. I can't help thinking it is another old-fashioned and profoundly un-democratic principle to have to declare a nominal allegiance prior even to voting. But there again, I am a serf in a neo-feudal kingdom, so what do I know?!

>profoundly un-democratic principle to have to
declare a nominal allegiance prior even to voting

in theory, these primary rules are supposed to limit the voting to a winnowing of candidates within [your] party; of course, nothing ever works extrapolated from theory.... [in this case, how can they limit your free choice of party declaration -- so, for instance, republicans may cross over in the attempt to derail the most formidable democrat opponent, if there is no real contest on the republican side]

Whom do you register with? The government? The party in question? Can you change your registration?

I get the feeling things are different in Canada. You just "become a member" of a party. Probably involves a fee paid to said party. Then you can attend conventions and vote on the leader. I'm not clear on what happens if two people from one party want to run in a particular riding. I think the members in that riding get to vote on who should run. That kind of sounds like what you're talking about.

But it may be that you can be a member of many parties, if you want, especially considering that some parties don't exist on both federal and provincial levels. This is something I'm not sure about. You might be a member of the Parti Quebecois provincially but the Bloc Qubecois federally (or is it the other way around - Bel?). Or Liberal in both, since it exists at both levels. All very confusing...

riding

Ooh! Tell me more - is this the common term for electoral districts where you are? This is a wonderfully old word, with serious history...

Yup, riding is the common word for "electoral district". Also "constituency" is used. One may be federal and one may be provincial. (Once again I curse the dictionary which is at home while I am at school.) Both seem to be used interchangeably. "Electoral district" is definitely a US term in our eyes.

I'd just like to add (in the interests of the forum) that when it comes to US politics, republicans and democrats are unasinous.

>Whom do you register with? The government? The party in question? Can you change your registration?

in Minnesota, you register on election day, for that primary election only; in effect you say, give me the <party of choice> ballot.

give me the <party of choice> ballot

That doesn't sound too bad. Is there a <none of the above> option?

> Is there a <none of the above> option?

unfortunately, no -- and I've been disenfranchised for 27 years!

That doesn't sound too bad. Is there a <none of the above> option?

That question brought to mind another one that I have never been able to nut out. How can a country call itself a democracy, and yet attempt to compel its citizens, under threat of sanction, to vote? Australia does this, and it bewilders me. Fortunately for me, the democracy I live in does allow its citizens to choose for themselves whether they wish to participate in the democratic process or not. The idea that someone could be liable to judicial penalty for choosing not to vote seems, to me, to be fundamentally at odds with the spirit and principle of democracy. How say you?

I have found my admiration for Thoreau limited by fact that he wanted the benefits of government (e.g. to keep Indians from lifting his scalp) without being willing to pay his dues.

Party registration
The answer to the questions about registration is that the process and rules are different in the various states. Yes, I know that to outlanders it is incredible that the rules are not uniform nationally, but you have to remember that the United States of America is, as the name implies, first and foremost a union of states each and all of which have certain sovereign rights and privileges, among which are those pertaining to elections. I suppose by now everyone knows that there is no uniform ballot used nationally, or even for that matter within states -- each local jurisdiction is in charge and does its own thing.

Anyway, the way it goes in Maryland is approximately the way it goes in most places, in general, although there may be differences in the details. When you take up residence in a new election district, or when you attain the minimum voting age (18), you must register to be allowed to vote. This is generally done with the burocracy which runs elections; here it's called the Board of Election Supervisors, and there is an office in each county seat. You have to go there, show proof of age and citizenship (via a birth certificate, and a naturalization certificate if you are foreign born) and fill out some forms and you receive a voter's card which shows you are registered and tells you where to go to vote. You also declare a party, or independent. There is a deadline to be met. This may be as long as several months before the next election, or as short as the same day as the election, depending on local law. Last year, in order to increase voter registration, Maryland adopted a new policy that allows citizens to register at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles when they go there to renew their drivers license, on the excellent theory that since practically everybody goes to the DMV every few years, they can kill two birds with one stone. This has greatly increased the level of registration, as lots of people just didn't go to the trouble of going to the Elections Board. When you go to the polls to vote, the elections judges have a copy of the voter roll for that precinct and they check you off on the list when you report to them (so you don't vote twice). If you want to change parties or correct something else, you do it then and there, as they are empowered to make the change.

There is no compulsion to vote. Elections are nearly always on Tuesdays and the law requires that employers must allow employees 2 hours off to vote. The hours are usually 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Primary elections (those to choose the candidates of the various parties) are usually a month before the general election. I don't know what they do in other states, but in Maryland, the elections judges have a record of who voted in each election. If you fail to vote in a certain number of elections (I think 5 successive general elections) you are dropped from the election rolls (I believe on the presumption that you are dead) and would have to re-register if you wanted to vote.

>This is a wonderfully old word, with serious history...

Funny, it doesn't make it into "Atomica" and Canada is only next door:
rid·ing1 (rî'dĭng)
n.
The act of riding.
Horseback riding.

In Yorkshire (NE England), before re-orgnasation of boundaries there were three ridings "North", "West" "East" as any fan of the Bronte sister will know. Riding meant third, as far as I am aware which why the county described in Winnifred Holtby's book was an invention.

>yet attempt to compel its citizens, under threat of sanction, to vote? Australia does this, and it bewilders me

Maybe I've posted this before (or even worse, someone else), if so, excuse me.

I was told that the Northern Territories have never become a state, so do not have seats in parliament, yet those who live there are "obliged" to vote. What do they do with the votes?

I can't help thinking it is another old-fashioned and profoundly un-democratic principle to have to declare a nominal allegiance prior even to voting. But there again, I am a serf in a neo-feudal kingdom, so what do I know?!

Maverick, I'm not aware of anything that would stop anyone in the UK joining all the parties and then voting in a leadership contest. (Oh, I forgot, the Tories don't let their members join in the voting, only the MPs can vote - that's their idea of democracy!)

In this state, as in most states, an independent can not vote in a primary election.
----------------------------------------------------------
If you are an Independent you can vote in the Primary . A Primary is where and when candidates for election are selected from among those who declare they want the jobs.
HOWEVER, as you enter the polls and are checked off the registered voters list and approach the place where ballots are handed out, you must state a party preference and you are given the Primary ballot for that party.
Because I was in the news biz I always registered Independent.
When I first voted in Primaries I would ask for the party's ballot that I wanted.
Then, I would immediately write a letter to the Supervisors of the Checklist (as required by statute) and request my return to Independent status. So I was an Independent again when I voted in regular election where everyone gets the same ballots... federal and state and local.
These days, in New Hampshire, you can ask to be returned to Independant status as you exit the polls.
I found the same forms of those rules true in California and Hawaii.

"Live free or die"
wow

Fortunately for me, the democracy I live in does allow its citizens to choose for themselves whether they wish to participate in the democratic process or not

But Max, we are legally compelled to register to vote. It's just never enforced. Not a great deal of difference, really.

Many years ago now, Blue Kennedy, longtime secretary of the Meat Workers Union, a very powerful union in Zild until the early 1980s, addressed a meeting at the Burnside Freezing Works (Meat Packers to Yanks) and said, "This is a democracy, and so we're all going to stay here and keep voting until we get a majority supporting strike action."

Doncha just love democracy?

Blue Kennedy

apropos of a thread a long time ago and far, far away; was he a redhead by any chance?

Kennedy

... and did his forebears coem from that same Emerald background that gave the other instruction favoured of democrats everywhere: "Vote early - vote often!"

The rules for elections are governed by the Federal Election Commission. www.fec.gov/
Ballot types may vary state-to-state, city-to-city, etc but not the rules.
wow
Would some kind soul send me a Private on how to put a clickable link in a post? Simple directions please?

But Max, we are legally compelled to register to vote. It's just never enforced. Not a great deal of difference, really.

Call me a selfish SOB, but I treasure my right not to vote, while registering as an elector causes me no grief at all. If the rules here ever follow the Ocker lead, I guess I'll get a chance to practice a little civil disobedience, what fun that would be!

wow writes:

Would some kind soul send me a Private on how to put a clickable link in a post? Simple directions please?

Done

Doncha lose your independence when you register?

http:// www.fec.gov
For the United States Fedeal Elections Commission.
Thank you Bridget96. Directions very clear and simply put.

Anna,
I am a woman of Irish descent ... independence is genetic.
I think we have a separate gene yet to be discovered ... however ask any Irish man and he will pale and tell you that only the Mad mess with Irish women when they're being independent!


{nudge, nudge, nudge -- if we had one!}
wow

An Irish nurse asked me if I had any Irish in me.
I knew she had a real hair trigger,so I knew what was coming when I replied :"The only thing Irish about me is my disposition.
POW! right in the kisser.

I was told that the Northern Territories have never become a state, so do not have seats in parliament, yet those who live there are "obliged" to vote. What do they do with the votes?

Jo,

It's true that the Northern Territory (note the singular) is not a state; it is one of two territories that together with the six states forms the Commonwealth of Australia. (The other territory is the ACT, Australian Capital Territory, an area of New South Wales that was excised to allow our "artificial" capital Canberra to sit on "neutral" ground).

However, the NT has its own Legislative Assembly (similar to a state government but with more control still vested with the Federal government). Voting in elections for the Assembly is compulsory for Territorians. Also, as Australian citizens they are obliged to vote at Federal elections, for their one (soon to be two) federal representative in the lower house and two senators.

Interestingly, a recent referendum in the NT rejected becoming a state.

Further reading:
http://www.nt.gov.au/ntg/information/administation_history.shtml

our "artificial" capital Canberra to sit on "neutral" ground).

Might you explain the quotes for the uninformed?

Also, as Australian citizens they are obliged to vote at Federal elections, for their one (soon to be two) federal representative in the lower house and two senators.

Do you have any idea why a government that denied Aborigines the right to vote until 1967 should deny its citizens the right not to vote, if that is their wish?

>our "artificial" capital Canberra to sit on "neutral" ground).
>Might you explain the quotes for the uninformed?

Sorry for the obscurity, Jazzo. I wondered at the time if I should have explained it, but I've been trying to keep my posts shorter. Now I get to bump my stats up with another post.

In 1901 the states were federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia, and it was deemed necessary to have a national capital city. The two most populous cities Sydney and Melbourne were intense rivals for the prestigious title. However, in order to settle the argument without alienating a large part of the fledgling country's population, the powers that be decided to build a brand new city called Canberra in the middle of nowhere (between Sydney and Melbourne, inland). As I said in my previous post, an area of land surrounding the new city was cut from the middle of New South Wales to form the "Australian Capital Territory". A Chicago architect called Walter Burley Griffin won an international competition for the rare opportunity of creating a design for a major city on what was essentially a "greenfield" site.

Further details at:
http://www.tomw.net.au/cnbst1.html
and in particular at
http://www.tomw.net.au/cnbst3.html

>Do you have any idea why a government that denied Aborigines the right to vote until 1967 should deny its citizens the right not to vote, if that is their wish?

You're asking me to explain what goes on in politicians' brains (as if that's not an oxymoron)? If I'd known it was going to be Australian political history week at AWADtalk, I would have exercised my right not to log in. Nah, just joshing.

Funny, but it's one of those things that I've just grown up with and accepted. I suppose I put it in the same basket as teachers decreeing that you have to study a particular subject "because it's good for you". I'd probably be too apathetic to vote if not required to, but curiously enough, when forced, I don't resent having a say in who governs the state or country.

a brand new city called Canberra

Any special reason that they chose that as the name?

a brand new city called Canberra
Any special reason that they chose that as the name?

From "Yesterday's Canberra" link in my post above:
KAMBERRA - this Aboriginal word, spoken by tribes on the Limestone Plains, meant 'a meeting place' either of rivers or of tribes joining together to feast on Bogong Moths in mountains to the south.

From what I can gather, white settlers had already applied the name to the village and surrounding agricultural district before the major city was developed there.

P.S. Bogong moths shot from obscurity to international stardom during the Sydney Olympics. Did you see them?

>From "Yesterday's Canberra" link in my post above:
KAMBERRA

I had read that there had been so many possibilties for a name and so much discussion, that the name was kept secret until the opening ceremony.

Re: Voting in Northern Territory

Thanks Marty, this is probably where the confusion lay:

"At the next general election for the House of Representatives there will be provision for 2 members of the House of Representatives to be elected for 2 Northern Territory electorates. For some years prior to an amendment of the Act in 1959 the member had no vote in the House, although the member could take part in debates in the House. Amendments passed in 1959 gave the member limited voting rights in respect of matters which related to the Northern Territory. The Act was further amended in 1968 and the member representing the Northern Territory now has the same voting rights as other members of the House of Representatives."

|
|
|
ventura


The three lines representing, I assume, the stretch of the arm down to the bottom of the barrel. Or cesspool?

>How can a country call itself a democracy, and yet attempt to compel its citizens, under threat of sanction, to vote?

And how can the same country come together for one shining moment and enact a country-wide vey strict ban on guns? Perhaps because everyone voted.

My fondest dream is to have a national referendum here in the US on the question of whether we should amend the Constitution to clarify whether Americans do or do not have the right to own more than one gun per capita.

We could do this by having Congress propose a Constitutional amendment which would require that each state hold a referendum on the matter and if 3/4ths of the states voted to change the Constitution, perhaps we could stop being a country where murder is a way of death.

Teacher, teacher! I know this one.

For some reason known only to Australians, there was a list put forth and the wife of the Australian head of state (not the monarch head of state, but I cannot remember whether it was then called prime minister) somehow was granted the right to choose. She chose Canberra, which I think derives from an aboriginal word for convocation or meeting place, something like that.

I will probably be corrected by about 11 antipodeans, but I learned that many years ago while in Canberra. If memory serves me correctly that story came from the docent who was taking us through the exhibit for the new Parliament House, which was then under construction in Canberra. I'd certainly like to go back and see how it turned out, the plans and mockups were awesome.

How is it pronounced "Down Under?"
Around here I mostly hear CAN-b'ruh
wow
For Heaven sake! AEnigma wants CAN-b'ruh to be Canberra.
Miracles all around for those with eyes to see!

>How is it pronounced "Down Under?"
Around here I mostly hear CAN-b'ruh

Yep, same here. Now if we can move on to Lesson 2: Brisbane. Say after me: Brizb'n. Mispronunciation of their state capital city's name is the bane of Queenslanders' existence.

Marty from Melb'n

Marty moaned Say after me: Brizb'n. Mispronunciation of their state capital city's name is the bane of Queenslanders' existence.

Marty from Melb'n

Now, now, Marty, that mispronunciation is such an easy way to mark the speaker as a bottom-dwelling Northerner. What I would like to know is how widespread "Queensland" is as opposed to "Queenslnd", which is what we would say here. I just heard an Aussie Channel 9 reporter saying Queensland, pronouncing the a, and it sounded odd to me, almost as odd as the quaint Victorian delusion that AFL is a real sport [ducking-for-cover emoticon]

Max, whose Mum lives near Brizbn, and whose sister lives in Melbn

Ted mentioned: the exhibit for the new Parliament House, which was then under construction in Canberra. I'd certainly like to go back and see how it turned out, the plans and mockups were awesome.

Is that the one that is carved out of a hill, and looks like it's under the hill? I think I have seen photographs from a distance where all you can see is the Australian flag flying over the hill, and the Parliament House that it is attached to is not visible underneath.

Funny, I always thought they called it Canberra because it so badly needed bombing ... and that that was also the reason they put it so far from civilisation - like Sydney.

Oh, no! WHAT am I saying? .

We could do this by having Congress propose a Constitutional amendment which would require that each state hold a referendum on the matter and if 3/4ths of the states voted to change the Constitution, perhaps we could stop being a country where murder is a way of death.

NZ has a shocking murder rate. Guns are very rarely used (because we HAVE strictish gun laws). Murder is an attitude, not a methodology, I'm afraid. It's amazing what you can kill people with if you set out to try.

I just wish we'd stop.

Odd, Marty. Channel 9 announcers seem enamoured of pronouncing it "Kan-BEER-ra". I mostly hear it pronounced as you've suggested.