11-02-2004, 10:51 PM
11-02-2004, 10:58 PM
Don't have cable. So I'm watching NBC.
11-02-2004, 11:09 PM
I'n on the internet so I am watching cnn.com
11-02-2004, 11:14 PM
I'm watching the links I posted - not watching tv...
Andrew )
Andrew )
11-02-2004, 11:19 PM
Can't watch the tv anymore, listening to NBC
11-02-2004, 11:31 PM
Going to turn the lights off and the volume down, maybe I'll snooze on the recliner and wake up in time to see OH and FL called.
11-02-2004, 11:48 PM
Been watching a bit of everything.
Ended up liking ABC a bit more than NBC. I like George Will and George Stephanopolous. I do think Tom Brokaw edges out Peter Jennings who is becoming increasingly imperious I find.
CBC-TV's coverage is absolutely appalling - in the realm of "what were you thinking?" A dreadful awkward set, correspondents filing by phone, few key players etc. and the main host looking strangely as if he's preserved in some sort of pickling agent.
I've ended up watching more BBC than anything else. This is partially because the network coverage has so many ads and local (in my case Buffalo) breaks.
The BBC has been pretty reliable. David Dimbleby in sparkling form, a good rotating panel covering every issue imaginable in a highly intelligent debate, correspondents reporting from where they need to and even the odd international report. One was from Paris - Good Lord! I find Peter Snow jumping around a map of the U.S pretty naff after years of being exposed to US-style graphics.
Ended up liking ABC a bit more than NBC. I like George Will and George Stephanopolous. I do think Tom Brokaw edges out Peter Jennings who is becoming increasingly imperious I find.
CBC-TV's coverage is absolutely appalling - in the realm of "what were you thinking?" A dreadful awkward set, correspondents filing by phone, few key players etc. and the main host looking strangely as if he's preserved in some sort of pickling agent.
I've ended up watching more BBC than anything else. This is partially because the network coverage has so many ads and local (in my case Buffalo) breaks.
The BBC has been pretty reliable. David Dimbleby in sparkling form, a good rotating panel covering every issue imaginable in a highly intelligent debate, correspondents reporting from where they need to and even the odd international report. One was from Paris - Good Lord! I find Peter Snow jumping around a map of the U.S pretty naff after years of being exposed to US-style graphics.
11-03-2004, 08:21 AM
No TV for me for a few days. I can't bear to see smug Republicans or the chimp giving his acceptance speech. evil
11-03-2004, 09:45 AM
The highlight in the coverage for me last night was the BBC's David Dimbleby (who was hosting from Washington) turning to his panel and musing that India is a democracy far bigger than that of the U.S. and yet they use a uniform simple computer system that seems to by and large work. Dimbleby went on that he couldn't understand why a country like America with all its wealth could not get a voting system together that works.
One woman on the panel got extremely offended and said the difference was the U.S is a "mature" democracy, that this is simply democracy in action etc. etc. The rest of the panel looked similarly appalled at being compared unfavourably with India.
There is an element of truth to this though, when Florida learnt its lesson and went to an electronic system, while in Ohio they have several different systems of voting including the dreaded cardboard chad system.
I'm not an expert on these things and Keith may come along and point out I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in this country we have a federal elections act which means everyone votes the same way. Now we're ten times smaller than the U.S but I don't understand why all these different voting methods are allowed to flourish so predigiously.
One woman on the panel got extremely offended and said the difference was the U.S is a "mature" democracy, that this is simply democracy in action etc. etc. The rest of the panel looked similarly appalled at being compared unfavourably with India.
There is an element of truth to this though, when Florida learnt its lesson and went to an electronic system, while in Ohio they have several different systems of voting including the dreaded cardboard chad system.
I'm not an expert on these things and Keith may come along and point out I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in this country we have a federal elections act which means everyone votes the same way. Now we're ten times smaller than the U.S but I don't understand why all these different voting methods are allowed to flourish so predigiously.
11-03-2004, 09:50 AM
It's because it's written into the Constitution that elections are to be designed (probably a bad word) by each state. So weirdos who think the Constitution is the infallible word of God would have caniption fits if that were tampered with. They think screwing with the way America votes would lead to a slippery slope and the Constitution would end up being fought over.
11-03-2004, 10:22 AM
Lee Wrote:
There is an element of truth to this though, when Florida learnt its lesson and went to an electronic system, while in Ohio they have several different systems of voting including the dreaded cardboard chad system.
But the Ohio election has nothing to do with the mechanics of the voting system. There is no dispute about votes made by registered voters. The issue is with the walk-in provisional votes, and the law says that these are only considered if there is a chance they could alter the outcome of the main count.
Quote:
Now we're ten times smaller than the U.S but I don't understand why all these different voting methods are allowed to flourish so predigiously.
The US cherishes the power of individual states when it comes to voting for president.
11-03-2004, 11:06 AM
Ameriscot Wrote:
Lee Wrote:
There is an element of truth to this though, when Florida learnt its lesson and went to an electronic system, while in Ohio they have several different systems of voting including the dreaded cardboard chad system.
But the Ohio election has nothing to do with the mechanics of the voting system. There is no dispute about votes made by registered voters. The issue is with the walk-in provisional votes, and the law says that these are only considered if there is a chance they could alter the outcome of the main count.
Quote:
Now we're ten times smaller than the U.S but I don't understand why all these different voting methods are allowed to flourish so predigiously.
The US cherishes the power of individual states when it comes to voting for president.
Yes Ameriscot, you are right in the first instance. I guess I felt that it was taking much longer to count because of the system they were using, but as people were still lining up five hours after the polls were supposed to have closed, you are of course quite right.
On the second point, well maybe it's something the states should stop cherishing and agree on a national/federal system. However, if that has been the established system, that states are in charge of elections, it will probably take a very long time to change.
That's something people around the world often don't readily understand, the power of individual states (or here provinces). Huge jurisdictions of responsibility like education are the responsibility of the state/province, not the feds. I found that duality difficult to wrap my head around when I first moved here.
Now I tend to think the British government has way too much concentrated power by comparison. Only councils can really stand up to it and Thatcher neutered most of that sort of opposition around the time she abolished the GLC. But of course it's all to do with the size of the country and there has been some healthy devolution to Scotland and a bit less so to Wales.