• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

ludahai said:
That mechanism is called a primary. I have provided a link. Have you ignored it? That is the epitomy of willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

And for the billionth time, I am not talking about the primary..................................... :doh:doh :2mad:
 
RightOfCenter said:
The primary. That's the procedure and mechanism for deciding who runs.
Click to expand...

I grew up with a parliamentary democracy system with parties. It just sounds incredibly unlikely and enormously bizarre that the party cannot disqualify anyone from running in the primary for THEIR party.. I just cannot accept that without some document describing the whole process within a party and the steps of getting elected president.. Sorry, I am just very difficult on this particular issue, it just sounds too unreal to be true.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Yes you did. You claimed that the Supreme Leader of Iran choosing Iranian presidential candidates was no different than the Republican and Democratic parties nominating their candidates.
Click to expand...

That I said if you switch "nominating" with "disqualifying". Thats however not the same as what your previously said I said.

RightOfCenter said:
I did not set out to prove that, nor did I claim it. Parties are a valuable mechanism for getting the greatest number of votes behind one candidate.
Click to expand...

But if anyone can run as a primary candidate for the party without the party being able to disqualify them, then the parties in the US are just formal institutions.

RightOfCenter said:
The people are the party. They decide who is nominated and who they will support and try and gain support for their candidate from other party members.
Click to expand...

In Europe, a party is like a company, and the people can vote on them if they please. The parties are completely independent of the people, except in being voted on and voted out.


RightOfCenter said:
The registered, voting members of the party decide. I don't know how you're making these huge, irrational leaps from what I have said. If someone wishes to run for their party's nomination they register their name with the party and circulate a petition among party members to get their nomination. If the party members believe he/she has the best policies they will vote for him/her in the primary.
Click to expand...

Its just difficult for me to understand, because parties and elections in Europe is apparently enormously different from parties and elections processes in the US.
I thought they were somewhat similar systems..
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
yes.. and all people who dont know sms language are also fools in the eyes of the fools who use it to the detriment of language.. :mrgreen:

I have no idea what you are talking about what /=.. Please explain it.. I do not appreciate you calling me a fool because I do not understand it.. You are quite foolish for discussing in such a way.
Click to expand...

=/=

It's an equal sign with a slash through it... meaning "not equal."
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I grew up with a parliamentary democracy system with parties. It just sounds incredibly unlikely and enormously bizarre that the party cannot disqualify anyone from running in the primary for THEIR party.. I just cannot accept that without some document describing the whole process within a party and the steps of getting elected president.. Sorry, I am just very difficult on this particular issue, it just sounds too unreal to be true.
Click to expand...

There really is no easier way to explain this to you. All one has to do to join the party is register to that party. Signing your name and checking a box is all it is. Then if you are so inclined you may obtain a petition to be in the party primary (an example of this petition I have already given to you). The state parties have their primaries and vote for the person they so choose and then it moves on to the national party convention where the person is formally nominated. This is how it works and you won't find anyone who knows anything about American politics disagreeing with me.

The case you state, where someone lies about their political position is very unlikely. While anyone may petition to be in the primary vote it is extremely unlikely that anyone who hasn't already been in politics with the party for many, many years to even come close to being nominated.

European parties work in a similar way. Party members to get any position of authority must have been in the party for a long time and have shown their dedication to the party through hard work and unity with the rest of the party members.

Neither of these systems are at all close to the Supreme Leader of Iran choosing the Iranian presidential candidates, which you have asserted.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
That I said if you switch "nominating" with "disqualifying". Thats however not the same as what your previously said I said.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that in America it's millions of people doing it based on their opinions about who can do the job best. That is not to mention the fact that there is another group of millions of people who think a different way choosing their own candidate who can do the job best.



But if anyone can run as a primary candidate for the party without the party being able to disqualify them, then the parties in the US are just formal institutions.
Click to expand...
I suppose yes, they are formal institutions where people work together to choose an candidate and attempt to get him elected to office. What's wrong with that?



In Europe, a party is like a company, and the people can vote on them if they please. The parties are completely independent of the people, except in being voted on and voted out.
Click to expand...
And in Europe party members must adhere strictly to the party line. This leads to more parties in Europe so everyone can have their views heard due to proportional representation.




Its just difficult for me to understand, because parties and elections in Europe is apparently enormously different from parties and elections processes in the US.
I thought they were somewhat similar systems..
Click to expand...

Somewhat similar in the fact that they have free elections. The US has a federal system and a bicameral legislature with different rules for each house of Congress. Most European countries have a unicameral legislature and proportional representation, forcing the parties to make sure their members keep to the party line if they wish to have any power. But since it does have proportional representation it allows for a larger number of parties to make up for the fact that not everyone has exactly the same views on every issue, but everyone is still represented. Since the US has winner-take-all legislative districts people must compromise with their votes and band together to elect a candidate that they agree with more than the opposing candidate.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Neither of these systems are at all close to the Supreme Leader of Iran choosing the Iranian presidential candidates, which you have asserted.
Click to expand...

In Europe the party leadership and commitees can disqualify people from even top positions. And its the party leadership and regional meeting that decide who becomes prime minister candidate.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
In Europe the party leadership and commitees can disqualify people from even top positions. And its the party leadership and regional meeting that decide who becomes prime minister candidate.
Click to expand...

And in Europe the people have dozens (depending on the country) or choices for leader, and all of those choices have different views on policies and the direction of the country. In Iran both candidates are chosen by the Supreme Leader because they have the same views as the SL. Not democratic.
 
RightOfCenter said:
And in Europe the people have dozens (depending on the country) or choices for leader, and all of those choices have different views on policies and the direction of the country. In Iran both candidates are chosen by the Supreme Leader because they have the same views as the SL. Not democratic.
Click to expand...

No.. IN Europe you choose the party and get the leader as a result of that, in most countries in Europe you never directly elect the leader.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
No.. IN Europe you choose the party and get the leader as a result of that, in most countries in Europe you never directly elect the leader.
Click to expand...

First, are you going to tell me that people don't know who the party is going to nominate for leader before they vote? I don't believe that's true.

Second, it's inconsequential. As you said before, party's in Europe can prevent people who don't follow the party line from taking a leadership position. Since people who are chosen for a position of the national leadership have earned it through dedication to the party platform people know what whoever the party chooses positions are anyway.

Third: In Europe there are dozens or parties to choose from with varying positions on the issues. In Iran there are two choices who both have the same positions on the issues.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
yes.. and all people who dont know sms language are also fools in the eyes of the fools who use it to the detriment of language.. :mrgreen:

I have no idea what you are talking about what /=.. Please explain it.. I do not appreciate you calling me a fool because I do not understand it.. You are quite foolish for discussing in such a way.
Click to expand...
I chastised you because you made an asinine remark because your arrogance kept you from recognizing your own ignorance. I wasn't chastising you because you didn't know what it meant.
 
RightOfCenter said:
First, are you going to tell me that people don't know who the party is going to nominate for leader before they vote? I don't believe that's true.
Click to expand...

Never said that. But when you mention that, its not actually true that Europeans know who their prime minister will be when they vote. Depends on coalitions and such.

RightOfCenter said:
Second, it's inconsequential. As you said before, party's in Europe can prevent people who don't follow the party line from taking a leadership position. Since people who are chosen for a position of the national leadership have earned it through dedication to the party platform people know what whoever the party chooses positions are anyway.

Third: In Europe there are dozens or parties to choose from with varying positions on the issues. In Iran there are two choices who both have the same positions on the issues.
Click to expand...

I remember an ill scenario, which is related to the first quote in this post.. The prime minister of Norway for 8 years.. He was from the smallest party in a coalition of 3 or 4 parties.
Nobody actually knew when they voted, which coalition would be the winning one, nor that he would be prime minister. However, he has dedicated his life to the party and only became the party leader after several decades going through the ranks of the party, a small party.
 
scourge99 said:
I chastised you because you made an asinine remark because your arrogance kept you from recognizing your own ignorance. I wasn't chastising you because you didn't know what it meant.
Click to expand...

There is no need to utter your opinion about me, you will only get my opinion on you in return, and it seems like an unnecessary way to debate.

So I will lead with a good example.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Never said that. But when you mention that, its not actually true that Europeans know who their prime minister will be when they vote. Depends on coalitions and such.

I remember an ill scenario, which is related to the first quote in this post.. The prime minister of Norway for 8 years.. He was from the smallest party in a coalition of 3 or 4 parties.
Nobody actually knew when they voted, which coalition would be the winning one, nor that he would be prime minister. However, he has dedicated his life to the party and only became the party leader after several decades going through the ranks of the party, a small party.
Click to expand...

Yes, coalitions may change things, but citizens are still aware of them when they vote and generally know who the largest coalition member (who will probably nominate the leader) will be. The point is that they still have an actual choice. Unlike Iranians.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Yes, coalitions may change things, but citizens are still aware of them when they vote and generally know who the largest coalition member (who will probably nominate the leader) will be. The point is that they still have an actual choice. Unlike Iranians.
Click to expand...

Iranians did have a choice and voted on it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

wikipedia said:
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani 6,211,937 21.13 10,046,701 35.93%
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5,711,696 19.43 17,284,782 61.69%
Click to expand...

Thats second round.. In the first round 7 candidates had over 1 million votes each and 5 of those had more than 4 million votes each.

bbc said:
Victory for people power The landslide win by Iran's reformists in the country's general election was an unmistakable demonstration of people power and a heavy blow to hardline clerics: Jim Muir in Tehran assesses the result.
Click to expand...
BBC News | IRAN ELECTION NEWS | Iran elections: Special report

There is another election in 2009...
Iranian presidential election, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its going to be very exciting apparently.. reformists are gaining a lot of ground over traditionalists these days in Iran, and with a worsening economic situation it is very likely that their president and majority in parliament will be of this group, the reformists.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Its a race for clerk, not president.

And its not really related to what I am talking about, which it seems you are not understanding..
I know anyone can run for president... I am talking about the parties having no say whatsoever in who runs for them, that just seems illogical.
Click to expand...

The principle is the same. Unless you can come up with an example of the party heirarchy disqualifying a candidate, you need to concede.

If the party leadership had that power, Ron Paul would never have been allowed to run in the Republican primaries and Gravel would not have been allowed to run for the Democrats. You don't have a leg to stand on and your continued dragging on this only shows your willful ignorance of a system you obviously do not understand.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
And for the billionth time, I am not talking about the primary..................................... :doh:doh :2mad:
Click to expand...

But the primary is the process by which the candidates are choosen to represent the party. What part of this do you not understand? You seem to be running in circles.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I grew up with a parliamentary democracy system with parties. It just sounds incredibly unlikely and enormously bizarre that the party cannot disqualify anyone from running in the primary for THEIR party.. I just cannot accept that without some document describing the whole process within a party and the steps of getting elected president.. Sorry, I am just very difficult on this particular issue, it just sounds too unreal to be true.
Click to expand...

The party belongs to everyone who is in the party, NOT just the leadership. Unless you can come up with an example of the parties disqualifying a candidate without a vote, give up because you have lost because you are wrong.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
In Europe the party leadership and commitees can disqualify people from even top positions. And its the party leadership and regional meeting that decide who becomes prime minister candidate.
Click to expand...

But what we are saying is that in the United States the party leadership does NOT have this power. That power is left to the rank and file members of the party.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Never said that. But when you mention that, its not actually true that Europeans know who their prime minister will be when they vote. Depends on coalitions and such.
Click to expand...

But they know who the leader of the party is of the candidate they are voting for.

I remember an ill scenario, which is related to the first quote in this post.. The prime minister of Norway for 8 years.. He was from the smallest party in a coalition of 3 or 4 parties.
Nobody actually knew when they voted, which coalition would be the winning one, nor that he would be prime minister. However, he has dedicated his life to the party and only became the party leader after several decades going through the ranks of the party, a small party.
Click to expand...

This is a fundamental diffreence between the Parliamentary and Presidential system. Why you keep forcing your European on your perceptions of how the American system works despite the number of Americans who have come on here to explain otherwise is beyond me.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Iranians did have a choice and voted on it...
Click to expand...

But those choices were all approved by the Guardian Council. Any candidate the Guardian Council did not like were disqualified. That is NOT democracy and that is NOT akin to anything in the U.S. system (as you initially claimed.)
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Iranians did have a choice and voted on it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005



Thats second round.. In the first round 7 candidates had over 1 million votes each and 5 of those had more than 4 million votes each.
Click to expand...
And all of them were the choice of the SL.


There is another election in 2009...
Iranian presidential election, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its going to be very exciting apparently.. reformists are gaining a lot of ground over traditionalists these days in Iran, and with a worsening economic situation it is very likely that their president and majority in parliament will be of this group, the reformists.
Click to expand...
If they change their constitution and get rid of the SL and the Guardian Council good for them.
 
ludahai said:
But the primary is the process by which the candidates are choosen to represent the party. What part of this do you not understand? You seem to be running in circles.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am, because things are completely different in Europe, and its just almost impossible to believe that parties cannot exclude people from "applying" for top positions while representing that party.

As I have read more and more examples of how the US system works when it comes to parties and elections, I am starting to chew more on this issue and accept that I am probably wrong. But I would want to see everything in a document, the whole process of running as president within a party structure as something highly interesting.
 
ludahai said:
But those choices were all approved by the Guardian Council. Any candidate the Guardian Council did not like were disqualified. That is NOT democracy and that is NOT akin to anything in the U.S. system (as you initially claimed.)
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was alike the US system. I claimed that Iran is a form of democracy, and it is. It is comparable to European and American democracy in many ways. In the excluding process its highly comparable to European democracy, and if you guys are right about Americans party not having any say in who runs for their party, then its unlike in America.
But the system is very comparable to American and European democracy in general, but yes, more restrictive in general also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom