These are hardly contrived theoretical examples without practical relevance. IRV has serious problems both in theory and in practice. In practice, voters would soon realize, or be advised, that they cannot safely vote sincerely, and the political system would likely remain bogged down in a two-party duopoly just as it is today. And that is the optimistic scenario. If a third party somehow manages to become a strong contender, it could throw the entire political system into chaos, just as it could in our current plurality system
This is not born out by practice. IRV is used in the real world. Even though they say this, they give no real world examples. It might be fairer to say that their will be two groups of parties, instead of a two-party duopoly. Our system of government makes minority government very difficult in the best of circumstances, so a functioning system must allow _one_ party group. If there's going to be any strong opposition to the ruling party, then you need a simiarly popular 2nd group. Preference swapping between these camps would be political suicide.
The "Monotonicity" criticism of IRV stands... but the maths/theory should be redone considering how real political operate.
If all votes are sincere, the Ideal Democratic Winner should win if one exists.
This is a statement is pretty empty. 1st past the post voting passes this criterion, because it assumes that all votes are sincere. IRV is a hack that encourages sincere voting, isn't that the point?
The Condorcet method complies with the Condorcet Criterion, but none of the other methods in the compliance table above comply
This statement is also pretty empty. Combined with the above (ignoring the sincere voting part), it basically says that no system is better than Condorcet. That may be true, but the way these statements are written makes them look like an argument on faith, not theoretical maths! It all comes down to the definition of "preferred" and how that relates to the ideal democratic winner.
Consider, for example, the following vote count with three candidates {A,B,C}:
8: A,B 7: C,B 5: B
In this case, B is preferred to A by 12 votes to 8, and B is preferred to C by 13 to 7, hence B is preferred to both A and C. So according to common sense and the Condorcet criteria, B should win. But under IRV, B does not win. According to the rules of IRV, B is ranked first by the fewest voters and is eliminated. Again, an election method that allows such nonsensical anomalies should be rejected.
In the above example, B was preferred, but for some curious reason, the B voters didn't support either the A and C candidates. That is _also_ an anomaly. Is the B party snubbing their A and C allies? Imagine a classroom full of children on the first day of school... very quickly groups of kids form... they make friends. It is rare for a kids to support more than one group, they always end up supporting one group with most of their energy. Politics has this nature as well, and so should the "pro-Condorcet" examples.
If all votes are sincere, the winner should be a member of the Smith set
I agree 100% with this statement, however, along with most of the other criterion listed, the subjectivity comes in with method of who is preferred. It seems that they are using the Condorcet definition of preferred to rate non-Condorcet systems. But the Condorcet system might fail any number of critierion I develop if I decide that the preferences should be waited by their order - for example, 2nd preferences counted at 50% their value and so forth.
Using Condorcet methodology to analyse IRV, with examples that are unsustainable in the real world... is bad research. The maths should be redone, with a model which describes the likelihood of any particular political situation (I mean the way voters choose their preferences). Perhaps a model could be developed by studying
Because they both hate the G party _more_ than they hate each other. If the G party polls anywhere close to the numbers required to cause a problem, _and_ the D and R parties poll about the same, then two parties will be forced to form a coalition to form goverment...
Only the D and R parties can form a coalition in this example.
The purpose of a voting system is to determine the majority preference. If the majority prefer X but the system elects Y then the system is broken. The politics of the parties is irrelevant. IRV is one such broken system.
The IRV system is only broken in unlikely circumstances. Also, don't forget that 1st preference votes should be more valuable than 2nd preference votes, so the candidate that polls the least by 1st preference _should_ be penalized, and vice-versa
All you're saying is that the parties can try and adapt to the broken voting system by modifying thier politics
I'm saying the opposite. That politicians adapt to form power, and as a consequence, IRV isn't broken in that circumstance.
People will vote G because they want something different to the same-old D and R non-choice... the G party really is different.
When the G party starts to poll enough that they win seats, that's when the anti-G polarisation begins to occur. That's politics, not IRV.
Once the polarisation occurs, then G voters will be damed if they vote for either D or R candidates.
The page you linked has valuable information on it, and Condorcet counting _is_ a better method of counting, but you have to way that against the accessibility of IRV.
People who do nothing but drink all their money, and failed high-school still understand how it works, because it's simple enough for them to understand (and they grew up with it). Accessibility is important in a democracy.
In this case the D and R parties are aligned, and most of the voters want one of those two candidates to win.
The question for G voters is "are the D and R candidates that different if the parties support each other?". Well they are different, but the G candidate is _really_ different. This is exactly the situation with the Labour vs Liberal/National parties in Australia.
If the G party starts to poll around 30%, it will be easily enough to force the D and R parties into a coalition - otherwise there would by minority government (and I've never seen enemies make friends faster then when jumping at the chance to form a government; that's when parties get authority on policy).
Once this happens, then it isn't as important to G voters if the R candidate gets in, because the D candidate will still form a government with the R+D government. The only difference is the balance of power between the R and D parties in that government... the party with the most seats has the most bargaining power of cabinet portfolios and such.
Your example is not "exceptional circumstance" in that is wouldn't happen, but it does run contrary to the nature of partisan politics. I've seen this at work in anywhere where there are lots of parties... not just Australia (I was in Austria for an ellection, and saw the same forces at work in Italy and Israel).
There is no spoiler effect because the alignment of R and D parties, unless you start talking about wild and unlikely scenarios such as in my previous post. For there to be a true spoiler effect, the D and R parties would have to be genuine enemies who _both_ hate the G party even more. If this were the case, and the G party polled significantly, watch how fast the D and R parties compromise to form a new government and power-block against those damn communist hippies!
Oh, one more thing, since the National Party is considered very red-neck, almost all Labour party votes put Liberal 2nd, even though they're the main opposition party. This may result in National party candidates getting voted in, but as I said before, they're all part of the coalition anyway, so voting Liberal 1st is plain retarded!
I think people will be enamored with the idea of commercial space flight initially, but if the first accident comes early on, its reputation could be damaged for a long time.
In practice, this is extremely unlikely. In your example, the choice between the R and G candidate is chosen by the less popular D candidate. That's because the D candidate polled the least primary votes.
When you came up with your 66% to 34%, I think you forgot that 17% of the voters prefered the R candidate over the G candidate (after the D candidate). Thus 66% preferred either the G or D candidate... not the D candidate as you say
But the point your trying to make _is_ a valid point, but it's not a problem in real life situation. That's because of the party system... parties will inevitably become "aligned".
I'll give you a real life example.
In Australia there are 3 major parties that vy for the House of Reps. They are:
Labour - center-left, unionist
Liberal - conservative, pro-business
National - right-wing, pro-farmer/country (as in not-city)
Because of the agenda of these 3 parties, the National and Liberal party have become aligned. Sometimes they go against each other, but rarely.
Almost _all_ voters (except in one particularly famous election) who vote National first, put Liberal second and vice-versa. This is a natural consequence of partisan politics.
Thus, to make your example "more-real-world", you'll have adjust your figures so that about 90% of people who vote for a particular party put the _same_ 2nd preference. Now see if you can make the IRV system broken... it's much harder isn't it.
You're probably wondering about that famous election I was talking about. The National party had been in power in Queensland for 32 years, even though they polled about 10-15% of the votes, because of a strong gerrymander. Basically, country seats had hardly any the number of voters as city seats, and the national party represented the country (farmers mainly). The government was way beyond corrupt, and laws were passed to prevent dissent, such as banning public gatherings of more than 3 people. I'm not kidding, that's how it worked - and you probably thought Australia was such a nice place =)
Well it got sooo bad that even the country voters began to revolt. Even though the Liberal party couldn't officially align with their worst enemies, the Labour party (because of the other States, everyone would have laughed even harder at Queensland), many Liberal candidates were seen at the polling booths encouraging voters to put the National party _last_ (there's usually about 6 to 12 candidates vying for each seat).
Did IRV fail in this exceptional circumstance of party-alignment revolt? Absolutely not, because in no seat were Liberal and National party candidates polling approximately the same on primaries as the Labour party candidates - that's extremely rare, because of the class/industry/education relations to where people live are also tied to how they vote. It would be a _very_ unusual demographic that would produce such a result.
Even if it did, _and_ there was an "alignment" revolt on the go (also extremely rare), then the 2nd preferences of that 3rd popular candidate have to be pretty much split even.
Now staunch voters always tend to vote the same way (until a Brain Mulroney like event happens). Swinging voters are likely to follow the alignment switch... or possibly just vote for the other party (the Labour party).
So we have to have a 50-50 mix of staunch/swinging voters in an electoral seat with an unsual mix of immigrant/racist/rich/poor/farmer/city/unionist/bu siness voters - split even across the 3 major parties, whilst in an alignment revolt.
But would it matter anyway? Only if that particular electorate made the difference of the election, and even in politically unstable Australia, most governments are formed with at least a few seats majority.
Once you get used to the IRV system, nobody thinks of the spoiler effect, and they put their favourite candidate first (or vote irrationally). Nobody considers that they should, for any reason, not vote for their favourite candidate.
It would certainly make interesting news if all the above _did_ happen!
Think of this though... if the Republican and Libertarian party are "aligned" (this is inevitable with preferential voting), then when the Republican candiates votes are split between the Democrat and Libertarian, most of those Republican voters would have placed the Libertarian as 2nd preference, (either because that's they way they feel, or because the party asked them to vote that way).
This is what happens with National and Liberal party votes in Australia. With three major partys vying for the House of Reps, it is inevitable that the National and Liberal candidates compete against each other, but almost all the votes from one will go towards the other when it comes down to the final showdown between them and the Labour party candidate.
The only voter who losses out in this situation, is in your example, with the stipulation that they are _not_ voting along party lines... which is much rarer than nonsense votes, such as the famous donkey vote (marking the squares 1,2,3, 4 in the order they appear).
I think the simplicity of IRV is much more important than taking care of exceptional circumstances.
10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market
What a politically contrived statement. He can't say "only windows" (read monopoly), so their must be at least 1 other OS, and people would laugh if an open source operating system wasn't included.
Now all of a sudden he takes the wind out of the sails of the Linux zealots, and appears all controversial. Yep... in 10 years it there will be Windows and *nix, just like today.
In a nutshell, the US declared war. They _invaded_ Canada and had their ass handed to them in a serious of land engagements (but they defeat the invincible British Navy in numerous skirmishes). In the obscure "Battle of Bladensburg", British forces burn down the White House, for which it didn't get it's name. It ended in stalemate and a treaty was signed which effectively legitimized American Independence.
Yep that's a solid win according to Webster (of the dictionary/companion to american history fame). Interesting how history is re-written by the "victor", or is it guy with the largest mouth.
In your case, your vote gets transfered to your 3rd, 4th etc preferences. If _all_ of you preferences have already been eliminiated, only then is your vote eliminated. Put another way, your vote is eliminated when none of the candidates you voted for are in the running.
All the preferences of elimiated votes are always used (where possible) and all the remaining candidates stand on primary votes + preferences, and continue to be eliminated until there are only two remaining.
In the exceptionally rare (read orchestrated) exception where a candidate polled a lot of secondary preferences, but so few 1st preferences that they are eliminated at the first round, then that's when Condorcet counting shines. IRV, on the other hand, is very simple, and still encourages people to put their first preference first.
Are you asserting that there are only 3 ways to vote, and that if you vote for the Democrats then you _must_ put the Republicans as a 2nd preference.
In your example, the Republican deserved to win, because _all_ of the Democrate voters opted to have their 2nd preference votes transfered to the Republican candidate.
But in your example, 50% of the Democrat voters had Republicans as their 2nd preference!
A more likely situation is that of the 32% who voted for the Democrats (1st preference), 12% put the Republicans as their 2nd preference, and 20% put the Greens as their 2nd preference. Then the Greens win.
I dont know what saddens me most, that they have the balls to submit an application for something so old and obvious like per employee pricing, or the fact that it actually has a pretty good chanse of beeing granted...
That it's granted, and that the corp as nothing to lose for applying.
Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!
The example is completely erroneous. If I ranked:
Libertarian
Republican
Then my libertarian vote would be transferred to the republican pile, and I most certainly wouldn't have helped the Democrat win. Simple.
We use preferential voting in Australia, and it's not perfect, but this example doesn't come close to describing any particular problem with it.
The only problem I see is from the granularity of the electoral seats. A party (such as the Democrats) could poll about 3% on average across _every_ seat in the country and end up with 0% representation in the house. To get a seat, then (with the aid of preferences) must get to 51% in any particular seat, and they never have.
Those votes weren't wasted though, since each individual voter gets to decide where their second (and consecutive) preference goes. All the examples on the linked article for why IRV voting is bad, they all assume that _all_ the voters who vote for a particular candidate will also choose the same 2nd and consecutive preference. This is plain unreasonable.
In the IRV system, minor parties are _still_ under represented (in theory, the Democrats should have 3% of the House of Reps if 3% of Australian's voted for them), but their votes aren't wasted.
most vocal proponent of "choice," which is just a euphemism for "death,"
I'm pro-death, because it's a choice to kill. It _is_ a psychological burden (unlike having children you don't want or can't have), but it's not mindless.
And you have no more right to tell me how to live my life than I have right to force my mantra on you.
Now that's a commandment that Christians should live by.
As opposed to a society that grows more and more accepting of criminal behavior to the point where... everyone IS a criminal?
An interesting point, but is it criminal behaviour then? Government (in theory) decides what the law is, and thus what is criminal behaviour.
A democracy is a form of government where (in theory) the citizens make the laws (by proxy of their representivites)
Thus the people have decided that their own behaviour is criminal and that they must be stopped en masse. How dysfunctional.
Well, not really, I think the problem is that the representatives aren't representing the average American voters... it's no secret. Either that, or the average voter feels that they are a criminal and should be dealt with by the law.
Murder rates (even in the US!) are down since the introduction of the court system. The period of introduction is different in different parts of the world, but were-ever it's been introduced, it seems to have played a large part in stopping people from killing each other (vengeance belongs to the judge)
Fraud is, and has always been a huge problem. It seems that we find fraud less abhorrent to murder. For example, if you were talking to a guy in a bar, and he told you he'd got out of jail for [murder|fraud] would you re-act, at a basic level, more negatively to murder? I think many people would.
As for speeding... since the introduction of laws, a campaign by the police, both in the media and on the roads, both speed and road injuries due to speeding have decreased dramatically in Australia.
The real change came when speed cameras were introduced... everyone slowed down since there was no chance you wouldn't get caught if you speed habitually. Now everyone just drives at the speed limit and it's not a problem.
In brief, my point is that laws _can_ and _do_ help. My point is not that we need more laws, or that this particular law is a good idea.
A democracy introducing a law that makes most of it's citizens into criminals for the benefit of a few seems a little... ironic?
Due to the law of supply and demand, the more lawyers there are, the less I have to pay for one when I need it.
We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here.
Exactly... behind those lawyers are gready clients
Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes
A middle-aged lady was walking on the _public_ footpath and slipped an broke her leg on the ice. She looked around to find the nearest building and sued the owners for not taking care of the side-walk.
The ice/snow is almost impossible here, with the narrow streets and really quick changes in weather. Everybody knows that (who lives here).
The warning on that Windex bottle is not because of lawyers, but because of the 1% of the population who seek to profit from their stupidy or accidents, and an insurance company has to foot the bill. (Either that or someones life is destroyed).
It's a cultural problem - a culture of non-responsibility (for yourself).
Other than differing faith in the "system", you feel that Bush was spot on the money by doing nothing, because (with the benefit of hindsight) there was nothing to be done, and his presidential powers are too limited for him to have any impact in most situations anyway
I feel that, if indeed the aid said a plane had crashed into the WTC (no I not going to bother finding an exact quote, but that's the premise of this whole discussion), that as the figure-head of the country, he should have, at the very least, abandoned the baby photos as a signal that the WTC event is that much more important. Furthermore, I feel that the fact that he didn't is a signal that he's not an effective leader.
Is that a fair summary?
The worst disaster in Australia in recent times involved a mud slide at a ski hill. Before anything else was known, the then Prime Minister appeared on the ABC to tell us of the events. That's an example of a leader-response to a crisis situation. It signalled to Australians that the matter was in hand, lending faith in the system. No F-15 fighters were dispatched, no heros yelled at each other... Hollywood is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
And what problem is that? That ultimate governmental authority does not lie in the hands of one man?
Read the constituion.
That the contry is set up in a way that it can function and respond even if the president is incapacitated?
Read the constitution.
That presidents in real life aren't like they are in the movies?
Stop watching movies and start looking at reality.
This is the whole head-rectum argument. The Queen of England has some limited powers as well, that she's never exercised (to my knowledge). She is also a strong cultural icon, hey they've even heard of her in Hollywood. She's known to make public appearances for time to time, as befits her role - she does more than just eat, breath, shit and dissolve the odd-commonwealth government when she sees fit. She's a role-model and a figure-head. Acting in _that_ capacity, she does stuff, like make the odd appearance at the appropriate time
By analogy, your president is the "role-model" and "figure-head" for your government, and is seen as the leader of the US, whatever his legal powers are. Is he more than his powers as granted to him by the constitution (lovely document)? Is he influential? Do people "look-to-him" for leadership in a time of crisis?
During WWII, the then King of England had a stutter, and disliked making public appearances. He worked very hard with a personal trainer to conqueror a very bad problem, so that he would be able to visit soldier's in the trenches and inspire confidence in them, that the figure head of their country is watching them. It worked, and he was not the chief of staff of the military.
Another great leader, Churchill, made stirring speeches, and was seen everywhere by the public, and came to symbolise the "bull-dog" spirit and character of the British resistance, such that if their empire lasted 1000 years, they'd look back and say "this was our finest hour". I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that the Prime Minister has less powers than the American president. Didn't stop Churchill, he knew he was more than a rubber stamp - a message a little too subtle for your average Hollywood blockbuster.
You need look no further than the great movers and shakers of your own country, who were inspiring in their time, and are still inspiring to this day. I guess I expect more from Bush, even as a foreigner.
TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE SAID AT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE THAT PEOPLE DIDN"T ALREADY KNOW?
"There's a situation and we've got {X,Y,Z,...} looking into it. Rest assured that all the elements of your government have the situation in their sight, and we'll be keeping you up to date as we learn more information". Would have made great press, wit
Nowhere, I was just making the point that you were wrong when you said that he couldn't go anywhere
please stay here while we clear a route
What's the point of having a president, with presidential powers, a figure head and symbolic leader for a country, if all he gives all his responsibilities to others? He did come to the photo shoot from an extended holiday.
There's a saying called "hurry up and wait" it especialy big in the government
You've never served in the army have you... it's an infantry expression. Leaders, at the very least, are meant to be seen to be doing something. The WTC being hit by a plane is very serious, terrorism or no. Either Bush was unable to grasp the importance of that particular building, or he is so dependent on his staff that he had no friggin' clue that it would be an appropriate time to stop pretending to love children in front of the cameras
And the president pretended to read a kids story while he awaited instructions
And you know he was waiting for instructions because?
He sat there with a bored/uncertain expression... and did nothing until someone told him to. That what is means to wait for instructions.
How do you know he wasn't waiting for information?
He was waiting for information... he was waiting for someone to tell him what to do... because he relies on other people to be the president for him... so who did you really vote for... that's the point.
How do you know he wasn't told to stay put.
lol... people are questioning his basic independence and intelligence.
Remember that when there is concern for the president's life, the Secret Service overrides his decisions of movement.
The old security excuse. Do you think that said "don't leave the chair, you might die". Don't be ridiculous. He could have stood up and left the room, signalling to the world that a major aviation and financial disaster was more important to to him, personally than a PR stunt with children.
The point is that either he was incapable of coming to this conclusion himself, because he's so scripted (read no independent thought)... or that he considered the PR stunt more important until it was obvious that it would turn into bad PR later.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what he should or could have done that would have had any impact on anything that day.
There was nothing he could have done, in the material sense, with the benefit of hindsight... but what we saw was a guy playing a playing to the cameras in front of children.
The point is that it is obvious that he wasn't in charge of the situation. By definition, that's what leaders do... take charge. His aides and men behind the scenes were in charge... all the other people you refer to. In fact, they were so in charge that people are question if Bush is anything more than a card-board cut out.
A card-board cut-out isn't an inspiring leader... we haven't seen the face of the real leaders... we only see their front man. Isn't this a democracy? Isn't he your president?
How many ways can I say it? It isn't that there was nothing to be done! It's more than that he chose to do nothing! It's that your fearless president is led round on a noose, which begs the question, exactly who did you vote in as president!
Perhaps organize a press conference
Ah yes, instead of reading to kids from a book, he can read to the press from a script. Ignoring for the moment that those preparations are done automaticaly, and he is not the one that organizes them, what would he have told the press that they didnt' already know?
A skilful politician can make an impromptu press conference, I've seen it done many times. One of the most famous moments in Australian political h
Surely you don't think the president had the ability to imediately get up and leave
Yeah... he's got a car.
Furthermore, you don't know what the aide said to him
A plane had collided with the WTC
For all you know, the aide spoke of actions that were already underway
The aid whispered a few words
Without any imediate action to be taken, I too would have continued for a while until there was more information availible
Okay, but I would expect a leader to excuse themselves, and get on a cell-phone... at the very least.
Remember, at the time, two planes had hit, and that was all we knew.
And the president pretended to read a kids story while he awaited instructions
You are perfectly correct on one thing. The president does not run the whole show. It's designed that way on purpose (read the constitution)
When I said Bush was a puppet, did you really think I meant that he is a dictator that is too stupid to rule on his own, like some child king? Perhaps your comment was meant to make me feel stupid. Well, why don't you think about what it means that Bush did nothing for 9min, even though , apart from having defined and limited power, as written in the constitution, he is the figure-head and leader of the country.
And what pray tell would this "great" leader do,
In short, something inspiring.
I can't tell you what a "great" leader would do, but I can tell you what a plain old, ordinary, leader might do:
Perhaps organize a press conference
Find out who's investigating the problem, and make sure that it's appropriate
Find out if he's required in a legal role (do I need to press a red button?), and prepare for it
See if there's anything that _he_ can do, both as a president and as a person
Give us the illusion that he's doing some work
The very fact that so many people are arguing over it is evidence that pretending to read a kids story is considered too lame for a leader of a country.
I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection
Riigghhhhht. So since the evidence to the contrary is too... big?... then you must be right anyway. Open your mind to alternate ideas... that's an essential part of thinking. You don't have to agree with your opponents, but you _do_ have to appreciate their arguments. I mean you should do this if you want other people to take your arguments seriously.
Imagine two people shouting at each other, and neither listening to a word the other is saying. It's obvious that there's something wrong with this situation... perhaps if each took turns talking, and trying to understand what each other is saying; well then they'd get somewhere. They may never agree, but for the purposes of arguing, they would be successful.
About the principal... if he's half the republican you are (and he was invovled in a protomotional event, GWBush's photo opportunity), then you can take what he says with a grain of salt. The guy who whispered the news in his ear wasn't as "flatering" to Bush's reaction.
WATCH THE VIDEO
Bush did say:
"important to project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening"
but the question is do you believe him? He's a politician talking about a sensitive issue in the public eye... do you think he would have told the whole truth?
You can see him pretending to read the book, like he's unconfortable around children and doesn't know what to do. I think he was disturbed by the news, and froze, and eventually someone had to tell him that "we're ready to go".
If he had any backbone at all, he would have instantly abandoned the photo opportunity... "Sorry kids, but I've just received an important message", and gone and found out more information about what was happening. Hell, he could have called anybody in the country who could tell him what was going on.
I think part of the problem with his mindset at the time... he'd been on holiday pretty much constantly since gaining office.
I don't vote for any particular party... so please don't take my comments to be partisan. Open your eyes to how your political system works. Maybe you'll work out that the president doesn't really run the show.
The assumption seems to be that had Bush lept into action immediately, something would have gone differently that day. I breathlessly await a description of how.
This is erroneous, and based a little on hind-sight. You are correct that nothing much would have changed if he'd "lept into action". But Bush didn't know that when he heard the news - nobody did. He's the president, and in a national emergency he may be required to make a decision. Thus either it wasn't an emergency (do you believe that?), or the president isn't needed to do anything in an emergency. Do you see the distinction with you question? Hindsight has a wonderful way of changing the picture doesn't it =)
Bush (and Clinton) could have done something about terrorism eariler, because their own intelligence experts were warning of "an attack". They didn't, and that's past. I agree that nothing would have happened differently on-the-day if Bush lept into action, but the whole event highlights just how much of a puppet he really is.
A great leader would have been... "great"; Bush was completely lame.
You might argue that invading Iraq and Afganistan was the great "vision", and a crucial thrust in the War on Terror. Many believe that. Some guy was telling me that those Iraqis won't be a threat any more, and while the US is there, they should take care of Iran and a few more muslims too.
_You_ may believe that what the Republicans did was right, both on 9/11 and since. But most of the world (and many Americans) believe it's a croke of #$%@ designed to help the Republicans get re-elected (read a history book). The election and the phantom Iraqi WMD have pretty much destroyed the US's credability abroad, and the wo
The waiting in the emergency room isn't due to lack of funding... it's a random thing based on whether a higher-priority case is in your way at the moment.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the wainting time is partly to do with higher-priority cases andfunding.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not born out by practice. IRV is used in the real world. Even though they say this, they give no real world examples. It might be fairer to say that their will be two groups of parties, instead of a two-party duopoly. Our system of government makes minority government very difficult in the best of circumstances, so a functioning system must allow _one_ party group. If there's going to be any strong opposition to the ruling party, then you need a simiarly popular 2nd group. Preference swapping between these camps would be political suicide.
The "Monotonicity" criticism of IRV stands... but the maths/theory should be redone considering how real political operate.
If all votes are sincere, the Ideal Democratic Winner should win if one exists.
This is a statement is pretty empty. 1st past the post voting passes this criterion, because it assumes that all votes are sincere. IRV is a hack that encourages sincere voting, isn't that the point?
The Condorcet method complies with the Condorcet Criterion, but none of the other methods in the compliance table above comply
This statement is also pretty empty. Combined with the above (ignoring the sincere voting part), it basically says that no system is better than Condorcet. That may be true, but the way these statements are written makes them look like an argument on faith, not theoretical maths! It all comes down to the definition of "preferred" and how that relates to the ideal democratic winner.
In the above example, B was preferred, but for some curious reason, the B voters didn't support either the A and C candidates. That is _also_ an anomaly. Is the B party snubbing their A and C allies? Imagine a classroom full of children on the first day of school... very quickly groups of kids form... they make friends. It is rare for a kids to support more than one group, they always end up supporting one group with most of their energy. Politics has this nature as well, and so should the "pro-Condorcet" examples.
If all votes are sincere, the winner should be a member of the Smith set
I agree 100% with this statement, however, along with most of the other criterion listed, the subjectivity comes in with method of who is preferred. It seems that they are using the Condorcet definition of preferred to rate non-Condorcet systems. But the Condorcet system might fail any number of critierion I develop if I decide that the preferences should be waited by their order - for example, 2nd preferences counted at 50% their value and so forth.
Using Condorcet methodology to analyse IRV, with examples that are unsustainable in the real world... is bad research. The maths should be redone, with a model which describes the likelihood of any particular political situation (I mean the way voters choose their preferences). Perhaps a model could be developed by studying
What makes you assume the parties are aligned?
Because they both hate the G party _more_ than they hate each other. If the G party polls anywhere close to the numbers required to cause a problem, _and_ the D and R parties poll about the same, then two parties will be forced to form a coalition to form goverment...
Only the D and R parties can form a coalition in this example.
The purpose of a voting system is to determine the majority preference. If the majority prefer X but the system elects Y then the system is broken. The politics of the parties is irrelevant. IRV is one such broken system.
The IRV system is only broken in unlikely circumstances. Also, don't forget that 1st preference votes should be more valuable than 2nd preference votes, so the candidate that polls the least by 1st preference _should_ be penalized, and vice-versa
All you're saying is that the parties can try and adapt to the broken voting system by modifying thier politics
I'm saying the opposite. That politicians adapt to form power, and as a consequence, IRV isn't broken in that circumstance.
People will vote G because they want something different to the same-old D and R non-choice... the G party really is different.
When the G party starts to poll enough that they win seats, that's when the anti-G polarisation begins to occur. That's politics, not IRV.
Once the polarisation occurs, then G voters will be damed if they vote for either D or R candidates.
Just look at how the major parties are characterizing the Green party in Australia right now... this is a real world example of polarisation start starting!
The page you linked has valuable information on it, and Condorcet counting _is_ a better method of counting, but you have to way that against the accessibility of IRV.
People who do nothing but drink all their money, and failed high-school still understand how it works, because it's simple enough for them to understand (and they grew up with it). Accessibility is important in a democracy.
Yay!
In this case the D and R parties are aligned, and most of the voters want one of those two candidates to win.
The question for G voters is "are the D and R candidates that different if the parties support each other?". Well they are different, but the G candidate is _really_ different. This is exactly the situation with the Labour vs Liberal/National parties in Australia.
If the G party starts to poll around 30%, it will be easily enough to force the D and R parties into a coalition - otherwise there would by minority government (and I've never seen enemies make friends faster then when jumping at the chance to form a government; that's when parties get authority on policy).
Once this happens, then it isn't as important to G voters if the R candidate gets in, because the D candidate will still form a government with the R+D government. The only difference is the balance of power between the R and D parties in that government... the party with the most seats has the most bargaining power of cabinet portfolios and such.
Your example is not "exceptional circumstance" in that is wouldn't happen, but it does run contrary to the nature of partisan politics. I've seen this at work in anywhere where there are lots of parties... not just Australia (I was in Austria for an ellection, and saw the same forces at work in Italy and Israel).
There is no spoiler effect because the alignment of R and D parties, unless you start talking about wild and unlikely scenarios such as in my previous post. For there to be a true spoiler effect, the D and R parties would have to be genuine enemies who _both_ hate the G party even more. If this were the case, and the G party polled significantly, watch how fast the D and R parties compromise to form a new government and power-block against those damn communist hippies!
Oh, one more thing, since the National Party is considered very red-neck, almost all Labour party votes put Liberal 2nd, even though they're the main opposition party. This may result in National party candidates getting voted in, but as I said before, they're all part of the coalition anyway, so voting Liberal 1st is plain retarded!
I think people will be enamored with the idea of commercial space flight initially, but if the first accident comes early on, its reputation could be damaged for a long time.
Sounds just like The Comet
It was a big deal, and the industry found the problem, fixed it, and the preception that air travel is safe didn't suffer.
When you came up with your 66% to 34%, I think you forgot that 17% of the voters prefered the R candidate over the G candidate (after the D candidate). Thus 66% preferred either the G or D candidate... not the D candidate as you say
But the point your trying to make _is_ a valid point, but it's not a problem in real life situation. That's because of the party system... parties will inevitably become "aligned".
I'll give you a real life example.
In Australia there are 3 major parties that vy for the House of Reps. They are:
- Labour - center-left, unionist
- Liberal - conservative, pro-business
- National - right-wing, pro-farmer/country (as in not-city)
Because of the agenda of these 3 parties, the National and Liberal party have become aligned. Sometimes they go against each other, but rarely.Almost _all_ voters (except in one particularly famous election) who vote National first, put Liberal second and vice-versa. This is a natural consequence of partisan politics.
Thus, to make your example "more-real-world", you'll have adjust your figures so that about 90% of people who vote for a particular party put the _same_ 2nd preference. Now see if you can make the IRV system broken... it's much harder isn't it.
You're probably wondering about that famous election I was talking about. The National party had been in power in Queensland for 32 years, even though they polled about 10-15% of the votes, because of a strong gerrymander. Basically, country seats had hardly any the number of voters as city seats, and the national party represented the country (farmers mainly). The government was way beyond corrupt, and laws were passed to prevent dissent, such as banning public gatherings of more than 3 people. I'm not kidding, that's how it worked - and you probably thought Australia was such a nice place =)
Well it got sooo bad that even the country voters began to revolt. Even though the Liberal party couldn't officially align with their worst enemies, the Labour party (because of the other States, everyone would have laughed even harder at Queensland), many Liberal candidates were seen at the polling booths encouraging voters to put the National party _last_ (there's usually about 6 to 12 candidates vying for each seat).
Did IRV fail in this exceptional circumstance of party-alignment revolt? Absolutely not, because in no seat were Liberal and National party candidates polling approximately the same on primaries as the Labour party candidates - that's extremely rare, because of the class/industry/education relations to where people live are also tied to how they vote. It would be a _very_ unusual demographic that would produce such a result.
Even if it did, _and_ there was an "alignment" revolt on the go (also extremely rare), then the 2nd preferences of that 3rd popular candidate have to be pretty much split even.
Now staunch voters always tend to vote the same way (until a Brain Mulroney like event happens). Swinging voters are likely to follow the alignment switch... or possibly just vote for the other party (the Labour party).
So we have to have a 50-50 mix of staunch/swinging voters in an electoral seat with an unsual mix of immigrant/racist/rich/poor/farmer/city/unionist/b
But would it matter anyway? Only if that particular electorate made the difference of the election, and even in politically unstable Australia, most governments are formed with at least a few seats majority.
Once you get used to the IRV system, nobody thinks of the spoiler effect, and they put their favourite candidate first (or vote irrationally). Nobody considers that they should, for any reason, not vote for their favourite candidate.
It would certainly make interesting news if all the above _did_ happen!
Appreciate your argument, thanks...
Think of this though... if the Republican and Libertarian party are "aligned" (this is inevitable with preferential voting), then when the Republican candiates votes are split between the Democrat and Libertarian, most of those Republican voters would have placed the Libertarian as 2nd preference, (either because that's they way they feel, or because the party asked them to vote that way).
This is what happens with National and Liberal party votes in Australia. With three major partys vying for the House of Reps, it is inevitable that the National and Liberal candidates compete against each other, but almost all the votes from one will go towards the other when it comes down to the final showdown between them and the Labour party candidate.
The only voter who losses out in this situation, is in your example, with the stipulation that they are _not_ voting along party lines... which is much rarer than nonsense votes, such as the famous donkey vote (marking the squares 1,2,3, 4 in the order they appear).
I think the simplicity of IRV is much more important than taking care of exceptional circumstances.
And Syllable
Mac OS is a flavour of Unix these days, so I think it got dumped in with Linux by the micro-marketing-bots that do Gate's homework.
10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market
What a politically contrived statement. He can't say "only windows" (read monopoly), so their must be at least 1 other OS, and people would laugh if an open source operating system wasn't included.
Now all of a sudden he takes the wind out of the sails of the Linux zealots, and appears all controversial. Yep... in 10 years it there will be Windows and *nix, just like today.
The War of 1812, a draw...
In a nutshell, the US declared war. They _invaded_ Canada and had their ass handed to them in a serious of land engagements (but they defeat the invincible British Navy in numerous skirmishes). In the obscure "Battle of Bladensburg", British forces burn down the White House, for which it didn't get it's name. It ended in stalemate and a treaty was signed which effectively legitimized American Independence.
Yep that's a solid win according to Webster (of the dictionary/companion to american history fame). Interesting how history is re-written by the "victor", or is it guy with the largest mouth.
(If English had the same distinction as German, I would say können, and not dürfen.)
English _does_ have the distinction, you can bet your bottom dollar.
since 'can' has been corrupted by some particularly bad manors... and has enveloped the meaning of the word 'may'.
I mean who, (aside from the Queen) says "_may_ I borrow that book please"
There are many less-elegant ways of splicing out the 'may' part from the 'can', but while I'm not a German speaker, or language expert, I'd suggest
"the US _will_ do pretty much what it wants"
which captures your meaning nicely (I hope !)
It wasn't the point of the examples given!...
In your case, your vote gets transfered to your 3rd, 4th etc preferences. If _all_ of you preferences have already been eliminiated, only then is your vote eliminated. Put another way, your vote is eliminated when none of the candidates you voted for are in the running.
All the preferences of elimiated votes are always used (where possible) and all the remaining candidates stand on primary votes + preferences, and continue to be eliminated until there are only two remaining.
In the exceptionally rare (read orchestrated) exception where a candidate polled a lot of secondary preferences, but so few 1st preferences that they are eliminated at the first round, then that's when Condorcet counting shines. IRV, on the other hand, is very simple, and still encourages people to put their first preference first.
What's with the
3% D,R,G
Are you asserting that there are only 3 ways to vote, and that if you vote for the Democrats then you _must_ put the Republicans as a 2nd preference.
In your example, the Republican deserved to win, because _all_ of the Democrate voters opted to have their 2nd preference votes transfered to the Republican candidate.
Show me a real example of how it's unfair!!
But in your example, 50% of the Democrat voters had Republicans as their 2nd preference!
A more likely situation is that of the 32% who voted for the Democrats (1st preference), 12% put the Republicans as their 2nd preference, and 20% put the Greens as their 2nd preference. Then the Greens win.
I dont know what saddens me most, that they have the balls to submit an application for something so old and obvious like per employee pricing, or the fact that it actually has a pretty good chanse of beeing granted...
That it's granted, and that the corp as nothing to lose for applying.
The example is completely erroneous. If I ranked:
- Libertarian
- Republican
Then my libertarian vote would be transferred to the republican pile, and I most certainly wouldn't have helped the Democrat win. Simple.We use preferential voting in Australia, and it's not perfect, but this example doesn't come close to describing any particular problem with it.
The only problem I see is from the granularity of the electoral seats. A party (such as the Democrats) could poll about 3% on average across _every_ seat in the country and end up with 0% representation in the house. To get a seat, then (with the aid of preferences) must get to 51% in any particular seat, and they never have.
Those votes weren't wasted though, since each individual voter gets to decide where their second (and consecutive) preference goes. All the examples on the linked article for why IRV voting is bad, they all assume that _all_ the voters who vote for a particular candidate will also choose the same 2nd and consecutive preference. This is plain unreasonable.
In the IRV system, minor parties are _still_ under represented (in theory, the Democrats should have 3% of the House of Reps if 3% of Australian's voted for them), but their votes aren't wasted.
most vocal proponent of "choice," which is just a euphemism for "death,"
I'm pro-death, because it's a choice to kill. It _is_ a psychological burden (unlike having children you don't want or can't have), but it's not mindless.
And you have no more right to tell me how to live my life than I have right to force my mantra on you.
Now that's a commandment that Christians should live by.
As opposed to a society that grows more and more accepting of criminal behavior to the point where ... everyone IS a criminal?
An interesting point, but is it criminal behaviour then? Government (in theory) decides what the law is, and thus what is criminal behaviour.
A democracy is a form of government where (in theory) the citizens make the laws (by proxy of their representivites)
Thus the people have decided that their own behaviour is criminal and that they must be stopped en masse. How dysfunctional.
Well, not really, I think the problem is that the representatives aren't representing the average American voters... it's no secret. Either that, or the average voter feels that they are a criminal and should be dealt with by the law.
Murder rates (even in the US!) are down since the introduction of the court system. The period of introduction is different in different parts of the world, but were-ever it's been introduced, it seems to have played a large part in stopping people from killing each other (vengeance belongs to the judge)
Fraud is, and has always been a huge problem. It seems that we find fraud less abhorrent to murder. For example, if you were talking to a guy in a bar, and he told you he'd got out of jail for [murder|fraud] would you re-act, at a basic level, more negatively to murder? I think many people would.
As for speeding... since the introduction of laws, a campaign by the police, both in the media and on the roads, both speed and road injuries due to speeding have decreased dramatically in Australia.
The real change came when speed cameras were introduced... everyone slowed down since there was no chance you wouldn't get caught if you speed habitually. Now everyone just drives at the speed limit and it's not a problem.
In brief, my point is that laws _can_ and _do_ help. My point is not that we need more laws, or that this particular law is a good idea.
A democracy introducing a law that makes most of it's citizens into criminals for the benefit of a few seems a little... ironic?
The problem is, there are too many damn lawyers
Due to the law of supply and demand, the more lawyers there are, the less I have to pay for one when I need it.
We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here.
Exactly... behind those lawyers are gready clients
Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes
A middle-aged lady was walking on the _public_ footpath and slipped an broke her leg on the ice. She looked around to find the nearest building and sued the owners for not taking care of the side-walk.
The ice/snow is almost impossible here, with the narrow streets and really quick changes in weather. Everybody knows that (who lives here).
The warning on that Windex bottle is not because of lawyers, but because of the 1% of the population who seek to profit from their stupidy or accidents, and an insurance company has to foot the bill. (Either that or someones life is destroyed).
It's a cultural problem - a culture of non-responsibility (for yourself).
I think our disagreement boils down to this:
...} looking into it. Rest assured that all the elements of your government have the situation in their sight, and we'll be keeping you up to date as we learn more information". Would have made great press, wit
Other than differing faith in the "system", you feel that Bush was spot on the money by doing nothing, because (with the benefit of hindsight) there was nothing to be done, and his presidential powers are too limited for him to have any impact in most situations anyway
I feel that, if indeed the aid said a plane had crashed into the WTC (no I not going to bother finding an exact quote, but that's the premise of this whole discussion), that as the figure-head of the country, he should have, at the very least, abandoned the baby photos as a signal that the WTC event is that much more important. Furthermore, I feel that the fact that he didn't is a signal that he's not an effective leader.
Is that a fair summary?
The worst disaster in Australia in recent times involved a mud slide at a ski hill. Before anything else was known, the then Prime Minister appeared on the ABC to tell us of the events. That's an example of a leader-response to a crisis situation. It signalled to Australians that the matter was in hand, lending faith in the system. No F-15 fighters were dispatched, no heros yelled at each other... Hollywood is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
And what problem is that? That ultimate governmental authority does not lie in the hands of one man?
Read the constituion.
That the contry is set up in a way that it can function and respond even if the president is incapacitated?
Read the constitution.
That presidents in real life aren't like they are in the movies?
Stop watching movies and start looking at reality.
This is the whole head-rectum argument. The Queen of England has some limited powers as well, that she's never exercised (to my knowledge). She is also a strong cultural icon, hey they've even heard of her in Hollywood. She's known to make public appearances for time to time, as befits her role - she does more than just eat, breath, shit and dissolve the odd-commonwealth government when she sees fit. She's a role-model and a figure-head. Acting in _that_ capacity, she does stuff, like make the odd appearance at the appropriate time
By analogy, your president is the "role-model" and "figure-head" for your government, and is seen as the leader of the US, whatever his legal powers are. Is he more than his powers as granted to him by the constitution (lovely document)? Is he influential? Do people "look-to-him" for leadership in a time of crisis?
During WWII, the then King of England had a stutter, and disliked making public appearances. He worked very hard with a personal trainer to conqueror a very bad problem, so that he would be able to visit soldier's in the trenches and inspire confidence in them, that the figure head of their country is watching them. It worked, and he was not the chief of staff of the military.
Another great leader, Churchill, made stirring speeches, and was seen everywhere by the public, and came to symbolise the "bull-dog" spirit and character of the British resistance, such that if their empire lasted 1000 years, they'd look back and say "this was our finest hour". I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that the Prime Minister has less powers than the American president. Didn't stop Churchill, he knew he was more than a rubber stamp - a message a little too subtle for your average Hollywood blockbuster.
You need look no further than the great movers and shakers of your own country, who were inspiring in their time, and are still inspiring to this day. I guess I expect more from Bush, even as a foreigner.
TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE SAID AT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE THAT PEOPLE DIDN"T ALREADY KNOW?
"There's a situation and we've got {X,Y,Z,
Yeah... he's got a car.
...
But where will he go?
Nowhere, I was just making the point that you were wrong when you said that he couldn't go anywhere
please stay here while we clear a route
What's the point of having a president, with presidential powers, a figure head and symbolic leader for a country, if all he gives all his responsibilities to others? He did come to the photo shoot from an extended holiday.
There's a saying called "hurry up and wait" it especialy big in the government
You've never served in the army have you... it's an infantry expression. Leaders, at the very least, are meant to be seen to be doing something. The WTC being hit by a plane is very serious, terrorism or no. Either Bush was unable to grasp the importance of that particular building, or he is so dependent on his staff that he had no friggin' clue that it would be an appropriate time to stop pretending to love children in front of the cameras
And the president pretended to read a kids story while he awaited instructions
And you know he was waiting for instructions because?
He sat there with a bored/uncertain expression... and did nothing until someone told him to. That what is means to wait for instructions.
How do you know he wasn't waiting for information?
He was waiting for information... he was waiting for someone to tell him what to do... because he relies on other people to be the president for him... so who did you really vote for... that's the point.
How do you know he wasn't told to stay put.
lol... people are questioning his basic independence and intelligence.
Remember that when there is concern for the president's life, the Secret Service overrides his decisions of movement.
The old security excuse. Do you think that said "don't leave the chair, you might die". Don't be ridiculous. He could have stood up and left the room, signalling to the world that a major aviation and financial disaster was more important to to him, personally than a PR stunt with children.
The point is that either he was incapable of coming to this conclusion himself, because he's so scripted (read no independent thought)... or that he considered the PR stunt more important until it was obvious that it would turn into bad PR later.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what he should or could have done that would have had any impact on anything that day.
There was nothing he could have done, in the material sense, with the benefit of hindsight... but what we saw was a guy playing a playing to the cameras in front of children.
The point is that it is obvious that he wasn't in charge of the situation . By definition, that's what leaders do... take charge. His aides and men behind the scenes were in charge... all the other people you refer to. In fact, they were so in charge that people are question if Bush is anything more than a card-board cut out.
A card-board cut-out isn't an inspiring leader... we haven't seen the face of the real leaders... we only see their front man. Isn't this a democracy? Isn't he your president?
How many ways can I say it? It isn't that there was nothing to be done! It's more than that he chose to do nothing! It's that your fearless president is led round on a noose, which begs the question, exactly who did you vote in as president!
Perhaps organize a press conference
Ah yes, instead of reading to kids from a book, he can read to the press from a script. Ignoring for the moment that those preparations are done automaticaly, and he is not the one that organizes them, what would he have told the press that they didnt' already know?
A skilful politician can make an impromptu press conference, I've seen it done many times. One of the most famous moments in Australian political h
Yeah... he's got a car.
Furthermore, you don't know what the aide said to him
A plane had collided with the WTC
For all you know, the aide spoke of actions that were already underway
The aid whispered a few words
Without any imediate action to be taken, I too would have continued for a while until there was more information availible
Okay, but I would expect a leader to excuse themselves, and get on a cell-phone... at the very least.
Remember, at the time, two planes had hit, and that was all we knew.
And the president pretended to read a kids story while he awaited instructions
You are perfectly correct on one thing. The president does not run the whole show. It's designed that way on purpose (read the constitution)
When I said Bush was a puppet, did you really think I meant that he is a dictator that is too stupid to rule on his own, like some child king? Perhaps your comment was meant to make me feel stupid. Well, why don't you think about what it means that Bush did nothing for 9min, even though , apart from having defined and limited power, as written in the constitution, he is the figure-head and leader of the country
And what pray tell would this "great" leader do,
In short, something inspiring. I can't tell you what a "great" leader would do, but I can tell you what a plain old, ordinary, leader might do:
The very fact that so many people are arguing over it is evidence that pretending to read a kids story is considered too lame for a leader of a country.
I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection
Riigghhhhht. So since the evidence to the contrary is too... big?... then you must be right anyway. Open your mind to alternate ideas... that's an essential part of thinking. You don't have to agree with your opponents, but you _do_ have to appreciate their arguments. I mean you should do this if you want other people to take your arguments seriously.
Imagine two people shouting at each other, and neither listening to a word the other is saying. It's obvious that there's something wrong with this situation... perhaps if each took turns talking, and trying to understand what each other is saying; well then they'd get somewhere. They may never agree, but for the purposes of arguing, they would be successful.
About the principal... if he's half the republican you are (and he was invovled in a protomotional event, GWBush's photo opportunity), then you can take what he says with a grain of salt. The guy who whispered the news in his ear wasn't as "flatering" to Bush's reaction.
WATCH THE VIDEO
Bush did say:
"important to project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening"
but the question is do you believe him? He's a politician talking about a sensitive issue in the public eye... do you think he would have told the whole truth?
You can see him pretending to read the book, like he's unconfortable around children and doesn't know what to do. I think he was disturbed by the news, and froze, and eventually someone had to tell him that "we're ready to go".
If he had any backbone at all, he would have instantly abandoned the photo opportunity... "Sorry kids, but I've just received an important message", and gone and found out more information about what was happening. Hell, he could have called anybody in the country who could tell him what was going on.
I think part of the problem with his mindset at the time... he'd been on holiday pretty much constantly since gaining office.
I don't vote for any particular party... so please don't take my comments to be partisan. Open your eyes to how your political system works. Maybe you'll work out that the president doesn't really run the show.
The assumption seems to be that had Bush lept into action immediately, something would have gone differently that day. I breathlessly await a description of how.
This is erroneous, and based a little on hind-sight. You are correct that nothing much would have changed if he'd "lept into action". But Bush didn't know that when he heard the news - nobody did. He's the president, and in a national emergency he may be required to make a decision. Thus either it wasn't an emergency (do you believe that?), or the president isn't needed to do anything in an emergency. Do you see the distinction with you question? Hindsight has a wonderful way of changing the picture doesn't it =)
Bush (and Clinton) could have done something about terrorism eariler, because their own intelligence experts were warning of "an attack". They didn't, and that's past. I agree that nothing would have happened differently on-the-day if Bush lept into action, but the whole event highlights just how much of a puppet he really is.
A great leader would have been... "great"; Bush was completely lame.
You might argue that invading Iraq and Afganistan was the great "vision", and a crucial thrust in the War on Terror. Many believe that. Some guy was telling me that those Iraqis won't be a threat any more, and while the US is there, they should take care of Iran and a few more muslims too.
_You_ may believe that what the Republicans did was right, both on 9/11 and since. But most of the world (and many Americans) believe it's a croke of #$%@ designed to help the Republicans get re-elected (read a history book). The election and the phantom Iraqi WMD have pretty much destroyed the US's credability abroad, and the wo
The waiting in the emergency room isn't due to lack of funding... it's a random thing based on whether a higher-priority case is in your way at the moment.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the wainting time is partly to do with higher-priority cases and funding.