"Left office with a surplus" means that he reduced the debt during his term, not that it was zero when he left. The US national debt has been trillions of dollars since the 1940's. See graph to the right on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History
But point taken. Clinton was very competent on the issues, despite his embarassing extramarital affairs.
It's doesn't need to be intentional. Every politician agrees the debt needs to be repaid (or at least kept from growing), but they can't agree on where to save, so it keeps increasing. In fact, that seems to be how the US government acquired its current debt.
Most other European countries have proportional systems, and it works well (as politics goes).
The problem with Italy seems to be widespread corruption and a less-than-serious attitude (like when they voted a porn star into the parliament).
In Socialist North Korea, the politicians you vote for are dead..
In the USA, the state declares fraud on YOU.
Does it even have to be a coDoes it even have to be a conspiracy? Can't the party members in the individual districts have tried to dispute the votes on their own initiative, without being sure it'd make a difference?nspiracy?
Because every time you mention Democrats or Republicans in a thread like this, it tends to deteriorate into an argument about which party cheats the most, drawing attention away from the real issue being discussed.
Too bad I've already posted in this thread, or I'd mod you up. You've done your research well.
It's dishonest, but not fraud. Fraud includes an element of secrecy or misleading, not just rigging the system to your benefit.
Actually, that isn't how it turns out at all: there is no "ghetto" established, as the laws that the prevailing governing body passes will apply to the entire incorporated area (city, county, state, whatever). The key difference is that without the gerrymandering, there will be no voice in that governing body to represent the extreme minority's interests at all. So it's actually anti-segregationist, since it gives the minority a stronger voice than they would have otherwise.
That's a horrible way to fix the problem. It's better to have a proportional system, where parties are awarded seats in the government/state/county in proportion to the popular vote. The problem only occurs in winner-takes-all systems in the first place.
If we accept gerrymandering to give certain minorities a vote, we're also giving politicians an excuse for abusing the system to further their own power.
And yes, it's segregationist. Segregation means you separate ethnic groups. Having good intentions or giving the group a stronger vote doesn't change that.
Gerrymandering can be used for good too such as creating voting districts consisting of mostly Blacks or other minorities so they can elect a (favored minority) representative and have a say in the political process.
You mean, so the blacks become "equal but separate"?
Interesting perhaps, but not useful. The party that WON using any detectible vote fraud will not let you change anything, certainly not the outcome and probably not even vote methodology, or credential checking in future elections. In fact they probably won't give you access to voting detail numbers at all once it becomes common knowledge that such analysis is possible.
Just because a party won by fraud, it doesn't mean they become dictators for life and can block every attempt to fix the system. Sooner or later another party will win, and the cheating party can't make their manipulations too obvious.
That's a good point.
But... isn't the cost of the pilot a huge part?
Good point.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
