I would say that the european parliament is the same way. Big states lots of seats, small states fewer seats.
Most Americans have a profound ignorance about the EU. You, tiger is not an exception.
[quote=“Mr He”]I would say that the European parliament is the same way. Big states lots of seats, small states fewer seats.
Most Americans have a profound ignorance about the EU. You, tiger is not an exception.[/quote]
No more than your apparent ignorance about the US system. And I never claimed to have an understanding of the Euro system. That’s why I asked the question.
I know that the US system is built on some checks and balances, so neither branch is able to overrule the other - as a matter of fact, I specialized on US modern history in the first year of college.
Moreover, the centerpoint of my claim is that the US system is less democratic, as you need big wads of money in order to be elected. (Senator for boeing, anyone?) I would say that on state level and local level, it might be the same is in some european countries.
However, as far as I know this thread is about the french. One reason to that the EU does not have a foreign policy is exactly them.
Strange then that you would ask:
:? :? :? BTW, the checks and balances in the US system are not limited to those between the three branches of the federal government… the electoral college and the composition of the US Congress and the legislative methedology are also types of checks and balances.
Yes, yes. I know you stated that previously. However, democracy requires the right of the people to select their leaders… it does not require that all candidates campaign on equal footing, financially or otherwise. Candidates do NOT need big wads of money to get elected… They need usually lots of money to run their campaigns… but they need lots of VOTES to get elected. Thus, while the need for lots of money to run a campaign is not ideal, it is not, IMO, a factor that detracts from the degree of democracy a particular system has.
Seems rather undemocratic, if you ask me. 
i thought the fact that in the senate, RI and CA would be equally represented with 2 senators was purposely balanced by the house where it’s more of a representation by population. if i recall correctly this was to get the smaller states onboard the Union, and to prevent larger [populated] states from controlling the senate at expense of smaller states. theoretically, this bicameralism and its system of representation seems quite fair and well-thought out. i guess the problem for me is realistically who is limited by running financially and the limitations of having a two party system (effectively speaking) in the US.
Perhaps this is a system that Europe could look at. Two houses one by country and one by population?
Mr. He? What do you think?
It is ironic, however, that the French are so desperate to reform the system since they are the ones who insisted on equal representation with Germany at 29 votes each. Now that Spain and Poland are digging in their heels, it is precisely the French who are suffering most (next to the Germans of course). I guess it is a bit hard to sympathize with their predicament.
My sentiments are that it is fine to fight hard for your rights and interests, but if EVERYONE does it, well then you get down to a very zero sum approach and I would say that characterizes the French position rather well.
You thought right. Why should RI stay in the Union if CA can dictate how things are done in RI? This is part of the beauty, IMO, of the (much maligned) electoral college.
I understand. Lots of folks have reservations about the money involved. But I don’t regard this as such a detriment to democracy that many others do.
Imitate the US? Blasphemy! 
In today’s Le Monde…
D’ultimes discussions se sont poursuivis mardi 2 d&cembre entre Paris et la justice am&ricaine pour tenter d’arracher un accord amiable global sur Executive Life incluant l’homme d’affaires fran&ais Fran&ois Pinault, alors que les n&gociations officielles avaient &chou& la nuit pr&c&dente. Mais en vain. Mardi, en d&but de soir&e, une source proche du dossier a fait savoir que l’Etat fran&ais avait refus& de signer l’accord faute d’&tre parvenu & un r&glement global.
France is refusing to sign onto a global accord on the Executive Life case. No doubt many will find it necessary to once again criticize France for its unilateral approach to international affairs. It is of course believed that Mr. Pinault’s close friendship with Jacques Chirac is behind the French government’s refusal to go along.
Par ailleurs… French successes in restoring peace continue to raise envy among US officials keen to replicate its success in Iraq…
New Ivory Coast warning to France
A French military spokesman dismissed the threat by ‘300 extremists’
Supporters of Ivory Coast’s president have again told French peacekeepers to let them attack rebels.
One militant leader said that all French citizens and interests would be attacked at 2000 GMT on Tuesday.
Narcisse N’Depo was speaking during a second day of violent demonstrations outside the French military base in the main city, Abidjan.
France has said it will keep its 3,800 peacekeepers between rebel and government-held parts of the country.
D’ailleurs…
More mischief in Africa courtesy of the French?
Twelve suspected mercenaries are back in France, after their plane was intercepted in Tanzania on its way to Madagascar.
The men - all believed to be French nationals - walked away free after their aircraft, which had been expected in Paris, landed in Lyon.
Mercenaries have roamed France’s former colonies since the 1960s.
A former French foreign minister - Louis de Guiringaud - said in 1977 that Africa was the only continent where France could still “change the course of history with a few hundred men”.
Traditionally Paris has used regular troops to shore up friendly regimes. But French governments have also turned to “dogs of war” - as mercenaries are commonly known.
Les Fran&ais connaissent peu le Parlement europ&en, son r&le, son fonctionnement, et son &norme productivit&, paperassi&re du moins. Ils ignorent aussi la situation v&ritable de la langue fran&aise : ils s’imaginent que leur langue, le fran&ais, y pr&domine. Ce fut certes le cas pendant longtemps ; ce n’est plus le cas. Deux incidents r¢s en t&moignent &loquemment.
Sorry for laughing but this does raise a serious point… How many languages will there be for official EU business now that there will soon be 25 members. I mean if the French continue to insist on having French used, why not the Germans, the Hungarians, the Danes, etc and all of those would have to be translated from Danish to French and Danish to German and Danish to Hungarian and Danish to Croatian. So will the langue de l’union europienne soon become Anglais? What can be done? What should be done? Regardless, another nail in the coffin of the la patrimonie Francaise?
Tigerman, you need a big campaign to be elected at the national level. I would still say that it detracts. There are plenty of nations which have restricted campaign funding in a way, so the difference in monetary resources between candidates does not matter. 
I would say that the electoral college detracts from the US democracy. If I were american, I would press for a direct vote. After all, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, while Bush won the electoral college. 
What’s undemocratic about not working together at all? That’s the most democratic thing you can imagine. After all, then each state can do as they see fit. 
I’m having some difficulty following your logic. Yes, indeed the electoral college detracts from a PURE democracy. But I’ve already stated that in a nation such as the US with a large and heterogenous population spread over a large land mass, the best type of democracy is a representative democracy where the majority rules but the minority is protected.
I am also perplexed by your above statement in light of your previous statement from the following exchange:
In that exchange you defended as “democratic” a different allotment of votes for identical numbers of people in order to prevent “big countries from ganging up on the rest”.
Why do you regard the unequal allotment of votes in the EU as “democratic” but regard the US electoral system, which encourages candidates to not neglect the less-populated states, as “detracting” from democracy?
Moreover, if you would “press for a direct vote” in the US if you were an American, why wouldn’t you do the same in the EU as a citizen of an EU member nation?
There’s no detracting from anything by abolishing the electoral college. Moreover, the electoral college has nothing to do with representative democracy in practice, as their function is to elect a president. As far as I know they have no legislative powers. Your statement therefore baffles me.
Moreover, it’s a bit hard to compare a still mainly international cooperative organ such as the EU with a big nation-state like US.
I would like to see a direct vote on a head of the EU in Europe, as that would be more democratic. However, the time is not ripe, as the European nations are far more diverse than the US, and that the degree of integration is still moderate. Most decisions are still made on the national level, with most decisions in the EU being compromises between independent nations.
The loss would be much of the protection (or, the assurance of being involved in the process) if the electoral college were abolished. As I asked rhetorically before, why should RI stay in the Union if CA and NY and TX are going to decide how everything is done?
Anyway, a democracy is government by the people, directly or through elected representatives. If the electoral college were abolished, CA, NY and TX would be able to dictate how the good people of RI must do things, despite any opposition from the good people of RI. What representation would RI have in such a democracy? Surely you’ve heard the old saying, “pure democracy is nothing more than 51% of the people deciding to piss in the other 49% of the people’s food”…
I don’t think so. But if it makes you feel better, let’s say we’re contrasting the systems… 
There will always be differences between nations in the EU.
Well France must be doing something right if the Muslim Brotherhood is upset.
washingtontimes.com/upi-brea … -9140r.htm
AMMAN, Jordan, Dec. 6 (UPI) – Jordan’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood Movement Saturday condemned France’s trend towards banning Muslim women from wearing the veil, or headdress.
I absolutely love this part…Spokesman for the movement, Yahya Shaqra, accused France of applying "double standards" by its plans to issue legislation banning the veil in schools, universities and official places, saying it was part of the “Western campaign targeting Islam.” This is indeed rich given that the Muslim Brotherhood was targeting Western tourists in Egypt not for what they were wearing or not wearing but to kill them.
Shaqra told United Press International that while France “claims to be a pioneer in protecting personal freedoms, it also bans the veil, although it directly violates individual freedoms.” (suddenly individual freedoms or freedoms of any kind for that matter are a great concern of the Muslim Brotherhood!!!)
Ah the French and their toys! I’ll bet the Chinese are are shakin’ and quakin’!:lol: 
France ‘to aim nuclear arms at rogue states’
By Philip Delves Broughton in Paris
(Filed: 28/10/2003)
France is to enact a historic shift in military strategy by targeting its nuclear missiles on “rogue states” that have weapons of mass destruction, it was reported yesterday.
[b]In the longer term, the strategy will “take into account” China as a potential threat, according to the newspaper Lib
This is where the well-meaning, well-intentioned, bien pensant will no doubt chime in with horrified squeals about international law? How rogue nations cannot be targeted because why? etc. etc. Looking forward to hearing their outrage.
Fred,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the outrage… its France, not the US…
Fred,
