28% Eastern European Turnout

[orbic1]

Ok - Euro elections this week. The 10 new member states produced 28% turnout! That is unbelievably shocking!

What's the turnout like in the States?

[Ron]

How would you like that broken down, by
Idiots
Democrats
Republicans
Liberals
Conservatives
Seniors (and by age category)
Adults
College age people
Dead People (Chicago and Boston only)
all demographics

http://www.census.gov/population/www...mo/voting.html

[orbic1]

ok... good or bad, really!
Interesting dead people voting stats, though!

[Ron]

from the data:
In 2000, 85% of the Registered Voters voted. (nice spin)
111 million voters (ie 60%) out of 186 million citizens, 203 million (ie 55%) over 18.

It was a good year.

Off-year elections (ones in which there is no presidential race) draw substantially fewer voters.

[orbic1]

In 2000, 85% of the Registered Voters voted. (nice spin)

Lovely the way they do that, isn't it?!

55% seems to be the way of the world at the moment. People are very disolusioned I think.

[Ron]

I think that there's this thing about non-citizens not being allowed to vote for president... if I recall civics 101 at all. But I could just be re-interpreting my beliefs and desires into my recollection.

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by orbic1
Ok - Euro elections this week. The 10 new member states produced 28% turnout! That is unbelievably shocking!

So what is the spin on this over there? That the new member states are mad at the old members for being antagonistic to the US? That they don't want to join the socialistic trends of the EU? That they are becoming more nationalistic? That they resent France's and Germany's recent domineering positions? That they don't care about the EU at all any more?

I really don't follow the trends in Europe and their love/hate relationship with the EU. The overall spin over here is that the EU backers wanted high turnout to indicate a "mandate" of EU policy and that those that backed the France/Germany position on Iraq (i.e. anti-US) wanted to punish the likes of Blair and support the Leftists.

Looks to me like the folks remain true to their roots and are, well, rather indifferent to the EU. It's a collection of very different nation states with different economies and interests. I would think they would get excited about yielding (or not yielding) their autonomic policies to a bunch of beauracrats. Maybe they don't because they have no intention of giving any real power to that collective institution anyway... kind of like the U.N.

[orbic1]

Not quite as simple as you put it there!

That the new member states are mad at the old members for being antagonistic to the US?

They have just joined and are attempting to make a statement (probably) to their own governemnts, resisting the constant political change at the moment.

That they don't want to join the socialistic trends of the EU?

Not really socialistic. They are left wing parties traditionally, but are actually often more right than the opposition.

Looks to me like the folks remain true to their roots and are, well, rather indifferent to the EU. It's a collection of very different nation states with different economies and interests.

Different interests, yes. Different economic basis, yes. Different levels of membership, yes. The UK doesn't share the same monetary and fiscal controls (the euro and the euro interest base rate) as a lot of Europe.

'tis all very complicated, but unfortunately it tends to all boil down to each country's populations trying to get at their governments to rebell before reverting to voting for them in their general elections.

A sorry state of affairs, but hey - the system seems to work. a bit. sometimes. for now.

[orbic1]

Maybe they don't because they have no intention of giving any real power to that collective institution anyway... kind of like the U.N.

What is decided is European Law. We all have to abide by it.

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by orbic1
What is decided is European Law. We all have to abide by it.

So it has been universally agreed by all members that the condition for joining the club is that EU Law supercedes state law? Has it been scoped to purely economic/trade law or is it further reaching and intrusive? That has trouble written all over it!

I cannot imagine U.S. citizens yielding that kind of legal sovreignty to another institution beyond our Congress. I know there are those that support GATT and other continental trade agreements, but even those are a tough fight and not yet settled law. England seems to have the most divisive position in Europe as far as I can tell. The constituents seem really torn and are not joining without serious reservations.

[orbic1]

So it has been universally agreed by all members that the condition for joining the club is that EU Law supercedes state law?

Yes! What's more, State Law decisions can be overuled by the European courts.

Has it been scoped to purely economic/trade law or is it further reaching and intrusive?

The latter.

I cannot imagine U.S. citizens yielding that kind of legal sovreignty to another institution beyond our Congress.

US citizens already have. You have states. So do we. You have an overruling government which has courts of appeal, so do we. This government is run by electees of the member states. So do we. The only differemce is, Each state here has more control and soverignty than your states.

[Oldfrog]

I am really not surprised at the fact that the turnout was only 28%. Of all the Eastern European nations the only one that I can think of with any significant democratic tradition is Czechoslovakia, and theirs ended during the late 40's. Given the lack of tradition and the fact that most of the existing population were born and raised during the years of Soviet hegemony when there was one party and one candidate (so voting wasn't really necessary) I don't think that 28% is all that bad.

If we reflect on the US perspective, at the time that we were developing as a nation we had some 500+ years of progressive democratic experience, beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215. The constitution that we eventually developed (some 13 years after gaining nationhood) did not even provide for the direct election to national office but only for electors from each state who would then vote their own conscience in a separate election to determine our national leaders.

Building a democracy takes a lot of time, and in the immortal words of my political thought professor, Harold Blostein, "Democracy is still a very fragile experiment. We do not know yet that it will work."

Even after the ratification of our constitution and our incorporation as a nation, how long did it take our forefathers to consider themselves "Americans" rather than "Virginians" or "New Yorkers"? Gee, we fought a war some 71 years after ratification that shows how much we still lacked a national identity that long after the fact. It will take some of these countries a long time, maybe even a generation, to adapt to their new conditions.

BTW, as far as the stats on deceased folks voting, back in 1960 when Nixon ran against Kennedy, "Box 13" in south Texas came in very late and very long for Kennedy. It later turned out that not only had most of the folks in the cemetary arisen to vote, but that several had done it twice.

[Ron]

Originally posted by orbic1
You have states. So do we. You have an overruling government which has courts of appeal, so do we. This government is run by electees of the member states. So do we. The only differemce is, Each state here has more control and soverignty than your states.

So did we.

[Ron]

We even have a constitution with a Bill of Rights that specifically reserves the power of anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the States or to the People.

Ha!

Can you say: "Hey, Joe! Come'ere! I found this giant loophole, and we can drive an interstate commerce truck right through it!"

The framers weren't perfect. Close, but not.

[mattsiegman]

um, all matters of interstate commerce are granted to Congress Ron Thats in Article III (I think), the one that lists Congress' powers.

I personally think that the national government has too much power.

And I can't really see the EU being a similar type thing. All the members of the EU are countries. I don't see why one country would allow its laws to be overriden by a foreign government.

Can countries secede from the EU?