SerSo wrote:[..] I would like to address my question to those Americans who are going to vote for either Mr.Bush or Mr.Kerry. It is not entirely about promises that were expressly given by the candidates. I am just wondering what PEOPLE are expecting and want to be done, changed and otherwise preserved if each of the candidates is elected president. If somebody consciously chooses to not vote, I will also appreciate if they can give their reasons for doing so.
What percentage of Americans usualy go to the polls?[..]
I am very grateful to all those who answered my first series of questions, however there is no one willing to share their view of desirable prospects for the USA. Or do all those interested prefer to measure the level of the candidates' IQ and integrity and all the variety of opinions is limited to whether George W. Bush is an utter moron or John Kerry is a hypocrite, what I might as well conclude from many threads on this forum?
realjohnboy wrote: marking for the moment. Welcome to A2K, serso. How did you find us?
Mere chance. At first I had a reverse interest and wanted to know how my own country is portrayed in the English-language Internet. The Yahoo search engine brought me here. And now I find it very good for broadening my outlook to read here a range of opinions of various people on different subjects. I also appreciate every opportunity to ask questions myself.
georgeob1 wrote:[..] our practice of having only two important political parties is just that - a practice or tradition. There is nothing in the law to prevent a third party, able at least to swing an election one way or another, from emerging.
and
stoplearning wrote: There is much hiderance and legal action though, Democrats have done everything in their power to keep Nader of the ballot
This is the point. The role of political parties in state government and typical differences between political systems with a certain number of competing parties can themselves be subjects for a separate discussion. But the problem is not that the law itself makes outsiders remain outsiders directly. In reality it does not, however the system as a whole is not only the statute law (lex scripta). If somebody in the US can share his or her view of the topic, I would appreciate it.
georgeob1 wrote:[..] Our system is very disorderly and when viewed up close appears to be - and truly is - full of defects. However in the large it has worked well. One of its saving features is the division of power between President, Congress, and Judiciary. The more energy government expends fighting within itself, the less harm it can do the public. Americans are oddly patriotic, but at the same time very suspicious of their own governments.
How do the evolving attitudes of Russians towards their new and still evolving political system compare to those described here? Our histories couldn't be more different, and yet we have much in common - both huge countries on opposite sides of the Western World with diverse populations and a strong sense of our individuality.
While the "division of power" principle itself, first suggested by John Locke in 17-th century and then Charles-Louis Montesquieu in 18-th century, is now recognized worldwide (although not always realized in practice), I have an impression that Americans are basically satisfied with their system but this does not seem to be the same for us in Russia. Though today's public opinion in Russia is to a great extent anti-american, your government system is still viewed from here as well balanced and therefore very stable. From my reading this forum it appears that Americans tend to stick to certain political stand and mostly vote according to their beliefs. (Or am I mistaken?) In Russia, personality is on the first place. Voters on the same territory at different time often vote by large majority for candidates with antipodal political stance. But in general very few people rely on the government and believe that their voting can change anything (I would add with the exception of those who passed long time abroad). There are too many examples in Russia that only might is right and democratic principles are only fine words and wrappings for imposing interests of the strong upon the weaker. The behaviour of USA in the world looks like an illustration of the same in the global aspect. Sorry if my words offend your patriotic feelings, but it does not seem to be my personal opinion only and many people outside the US would agree with me.
