On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:46:24 -0400 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
writes:
>
> On Jun 26, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > Quaint, huh? This may be partly due to the fact that Iran doesn't
> have
> > an enlightened, modern Electoral College.
>
> Man, I never thought I'd find myself defending the U.S. electoral
> system, but at least we don't have a bunch of clerics vetting
> candidates for office. Yeah, I know there are all kinds of informal
>
> vetting mechanisms - money, restrictive ballot laws, ideology, media
>
> idiocy, etc. - but at least in theory anyone here can run for
> office.
That of course, is as Doug says, just in theory. In practice in the US, no presidential candidate can hope to gain traction unless he or she is able to garner support from a significant portion of the capitalist class. That is just as much vetting as what goes on in Iran. I suppose the US system is better than the Iranian system, but that is hardly something to make someone jump up for joy. And of course we have our share of election fraud and stolen elections, including those at the presidentital level, i.e. the Kennedy election in 1960, and G.W. Bush, most outrageously in 2000, and argubly also in 2004.
Jim F.
> So this sort of sneer is really preposterous.
>
> Doug
____________________________________________________________ All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLygJICMP1gOg6cWIbgKoXg0FcpQKgtS4CeHDhDCQUrNDUh2dRsre/