The Basics of Government
 

Hey, all... I don't really frequent this forum much, mostly because the topics tend to go over my head. It seems that every time I try to learn something about politics, it goes straight over my head, or else I forget what I've learned within a week's time.

So I was wondering if I could have some help. What are some good sources that would explain to me the basics of (US) government--the 3 branches, the positions within them and what they're responsible for, who are currently in those positions, etc.?

Also, I would love some help on some of the "big names" in politics... Like Rumsfield... I know he is (was?) important, but I don't understand what he did.

At any rate, I really would love to learn a bit more about our political system (and world politics, as well), so that I can feel informed enough to vote--I didn't vote in the last election, and I am regretting it.

If this is an inappropriate thread topic, I apologize. Hopefully I'll get some good resources--though explaining things to me yourself would be even better, since most of the sources I've checked out use a lot of political jargon, which doesn't help me out any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Government is a good place to start.

Lucky for you the world of American politics is not a quickly spinning one. Congress changes its face every two years and it is sometimes infamously slow and others secretly (hopefully, no longer so) fast. Much of what you read about is the President's doing, but Congress is the heart of the American government because it is elected directly by the people, unlike the President which is elected by electors (people selected by a constituency to vote according to how their constituency voted) or the Justices of the Supreme Court (which are nominated by the President and ratified by Senate(?)). Bills are introduced by House committees, deliberated upon, voted upon, and sent to the Senate for the same fun. More often than not, these committees are chaired and mostly populated by the members of the majority in that house. The whole thing is very complex but if you're looking into specifics Wikipedia helps a lot.

Yeah there's this weird deal called the electoral college. It's crazy. While you're looking at the US Gov't, it's good to compare and contrast the concentrations/separations of power with the UK's gov't.

subscribe to Newsweek and Time. read them cover to cover.
but the best way to understand what's going on is to look at the political cartoons.

I have to strongly disagree with the above post. If you do that, you might as well watch the Daily Show and take it seriously. It's dififcult to find good sources on current info. Don't buy into the spin of any news station or publication. They all have their own adgendas. The best you can do is read everything, take a general consensus, and then make your own judegments based on your own philosophy.

A better place to start if you want info on political theory and how gov't works is to go to the source. Read the Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers. As well as writings by people like, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Immanel Kant. It's a heavy undertaking as far as the reading goes, but if you really want a well informed opinion, it's the best route.

Comparing the US and UK governments is like comparing apples to oranges. You guys have more than two parties that frequently get elected and have had it that way for decades if my knowledge serves me correctly. We haven't had a Presidential candidate outside of the Dems and Reps voted for by a state's electors since Alabama Gov. George Wallace back in the 60s (oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, he was a racist motherfucker) and we haven't had a President outside of the two main parties since the 1800s. We have only had a few independant congressmen in the last few years but they've all swung Democratic. And the electoral college rarely works like it ought to! (Electors tend to give all their votes to one guy instead of splitting them up in case a district votes that way.)

Double Post:
Yeah no, I wouldn't recommend reading all the old stuff because it's all far from what our government is as it exists today. The only relevant stuff is the Constitution. And even that gets flung around, pissed on, kicked and thrown out the window from time to time.

What's this "you guys" bit? I'm American in case you missed the flag. All I meant was that Blue should compare and contrast US gov't to other gov't to reveal how unique it is. It's comparing apples and oranges on purpose to show the drastic differences. A lot of people who are completely new to poly sci have no idea how different other gov't are. Based on that, Blue can then form an educated opinion on what systems are the most beneficial means to governening.

What's with the hostility all the sudden?

I didn't know you were an American. :p

If a state legislature decides to employ a system for assigning electoral votes wherein the winner of the popular vote statewide wins the state's electoral votes, and the electors assign the state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote statewide, how is that not working "like it ought to"?

This might seem off topic but it is far from that:


In reading upon the basics of the US Government, particularly the legislative branch, it's important to always remember the concept of sovereignty.

The people who wait in line to go into the capitol are people who don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Do you wait in line to walk into your house? your school? If you want to visit the Capitol, go through the offices (at the right of the building). You are lending your sovereignty to elected officials, make sure you understand that. If you are an american citizen, you can walk into the capitol, open any door you like, shake the hands of any senator you encounter, walk into congressional meetings, etc... My old history teacher taught in Washington D.C. Every year she would take her class into the capitol. They would ride the underground train (there is a train under the capitol so congressmen can travel faster in order to vote in time), get weird looks from congressmen traveling with them, then she would tell them: "Open any door you like, this place is yours." The students would be intimidated, but soon, would be walking into congressional meetings, offices, etc...

The reason I'm explaining this is because anyone who's learning about the US government needs to know this. If you are researching the subject for a class report or presentation, I suggest you include this as well.

Good luck just waltzing into the West Wing of the Whitehouse and sitting down in the oval office.

"Guys, seriously! This place is mine!"

The people who wait in line at the Capitol are usually waiting for the guided tour. They'd prefer not to have every Tom, Dick, and Harry just barging in on everything and interrupting their work day. They made that underground walkway for a reason. It's difficult to do the job you were elected to do if you've got a bunch of tourists interrupting all the time, or mobbing you like a celebrity. If you wanna talk to your representative, go see them in their office. They're accessible there.

In today's climate, sounds like a great way to get one's self shot.

Our government isn't THAT paranoid, they'll just tackle you for traipsing in saying, "Hi!" to your Congressperson.

Hmmm... When I first started reading Time I didn't have any idea on what was going on. It took quite alot of understanding and talking with other people to finally know what on Earth Time was talking about. Thankfully I understand it much better now. The shift from a kid apathetic about world events to a reader of Time sure is difficult if you don't have anyone to explain stuff to you.

Gelfling, I have no idea why you just suggested politically-jargon-charged documents to a lady who just made it clear that she has a hard time with political jargon.

While those documents and collections are all important (frankly, Smith, Locke, Paine, Voltaire, Kant &c are philosophy, not actually documenting AMERICAN politics currently ugh), they are not going to help her in her efforts to read about American government TODAY. She didn't inquire as to the philosophy of politics. Thats a whole new can of worms.

Blue, the wiki is a good place to start in learning terms and things. It's important to inform yourself before voting - thank GOD someone cares to do that for themselves before they haphazardly vote for whomever's name sounds more awesome.

Just don't use the wiki to look at the campaign issues of the candidates you're looking at (in the future, obviously).

Here's something that may make life easier once you learn some terms and things: Click.
I hope it helps. I can sympathize. ;_;

Thank you all very much for your suggestions of resources and the like. I shall commence to explore.

I agree with you in the sense that you can't believe everything you read, and that using just the mentioned as your sources is not the best idea, but I was suggesting this as a start. I assumed that 'blue' is on a schedule, and doesn't have time to read tons of books. I consider both News Week and Time to be accurate sources. It's true, that you will find biased articles, and everything is semi one sided, according to the editor and the author of that article, but if you can discern what is true, and what might be slightly mis-leading, then you should have no problem. I don't use just those as my only information source. I, as you said, read around and come up with my own opinion, this after having discussions about it with family and friends.
but you can't totally blow off those sources as being compared to believing nonsense.
if you were referring other sources as being blogs, then I hate to break it to you, but many blogs get their info from News papers and other periodicals, just like anyone else.

Our House of Representatives is elected by Congressional district, so if their constituents can choose their own representatives why can't they have their votes properly applied towards the candidate they choose, not the candidate the whole state wants?

Because the United States is a federation of 50 states, not 435 congressional districts, and because the state legislatures in 48 of the 50 states have decided that they want to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the state's popular vote for President. Why can they do it that way?

Because the Constitution assigns them the power to determine how electors are to be chosen.

If a state legislature wants to assign its electoral votes based on who wins the popular vote in each Congressional district, the Constitution says they can.

If a state legislature wants to assign its electoral votes based on who wins the popular vote nationwide, the Constitution says they can.

If a state legislature wants to disregard the popular vote for President entirely, pick a group of electors and let them vote, either as a group or individually, for whoever they want, the Constitution says they can.

As stated, 48 of 50 states have determined that assigning their state's electors based on the statewide popular vote is the way they want to do it.

Now, I'll repeat my question; if the state legislature decides to assign its electoral votes, as the Constitution says they can, based on which candidate wins the state's popular vote, instructs the electors to vote accordingly, and they do so, how is it "rarely working like it ought to"?

The only time I read Newsweek is to exercise my eyes (by rolling them at every article written by Fareed Zakaria).

More like Jewsweek and Hyme.

The American government is a system set up by Zionist conspirators designed to set a stable cash flow into Israel. The Democrats and Republicans are constructs designed to give American voters the illusion of choice, when they are in fact wings of the Zionist Conspiracy and Free Masonic Order, respectively, both of which have goals which fall along the same lines.

Abortion and gay rights are always an issue around election campaigns, but nothing will ever be done about it, because the Jews want the Gay Agenda to lower the population growth of Aryans, while the Free Masons use pools of stem cells from the collected abortion fetuses in their initiation blood rituals.

Skull and Bones? A lie, propagated by the Jew-run Media to distract Americans from the real power: the Triple Alliance. Never heard of the Triple Alliance? It's because the Jews don't want you to know about them.

The Triple Alliance comprises of the Zionist Conspiracy, Free Masonic Order, and the Illuminati. The Illuminati has its tendrils wrapped around Europe, while the Zionists and Free Masons found their new order in the Americas. The entirety of national trade and finance is controlled by the Triple Alliance, including War.

In America, elections are rigged to determine the Free Mason or Zionist canditates dictated by the Blood Truce of 1793. It's why Ross Perot lost every presidential campaign.

How it "ought to" work and how it does work are two different things. Electoral votes are assigned by Congressional district, just like Representatives, so why do those 48 states decide, for example, that one district will vote for a Republican Representative and one will vote for a Democratic Representative instead of saying, OK, the majority of voters in the state voted for a Democratic Representative so both districts are now forced to elect their Democratic Representative. I don't think that's fair representation of one's voting voice, and might be one reason why some people are disillusioned by the electoral system.

Electoral votes are assigned by state, based on a state's congressional delegation, not by congressional district (strictly speaking, there is no provision for congressional districts, but that's a different issue). Each state has an electoral vote for everyone it sends to Congress, with a minimum of three, as every state has at least one representative in the House of Representatives and two Senators.

You and Sass both need to actually read the Constitution before you try to tell anyone what it says or how it works.

Brady, where did you get this info? For they must die the death of 1,000 screams!

(off to anoint my head with stem cells)

Maine and Nebraska do their electing in more or less the same fashion I am referring to. It's a fairer (read: more representative) method than just throwing everyone's vote the way the majority of the state did. Why this country still clings to that method is beyond me and frustratingly so.

Whoa whoa whoa why are you dragging me into this.

I was under the impression that historical texts (which the Constitution happens to be) is constantly being interpreted. Which means that there's not always one concrete answer.

I was actually ripping off text from a school book I have here in the other thread. I didn't make that up. There's a reason we have the judicial branch, you know. ;_;

Seriously. Please stop being so goddamned critical. It's no way to carry on a conversation, Styphon. SADFACE.

When sections of the Constitution are vague on points, the judicial branch can be asked to determine what they're saying. Just what they say can be interpreted different ways as society changes, as when the Court that handed down Brown v. Board of Education read the Constitution differently than the Court that handed down Plessy v. Ferguson.

However, when the Constitution is crystal clear on a point, there isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) any need for interpretation. The Constitutional requirements for overturning a presidential veto are there, and are clear enough, as are the Constitution's rules for assigning electoral votes.

Someone who'd read the Constitution would know that, and if not, finding it would be a simple enough exercise of Just Fucking Googling It.

Look, man. I figured a text book would be a reliable source, since, you know, they teach students that shit. But they also teach students a lot of other bullshit, so.

I apologized for the inaccuracy and I only express that I wish you were a little more hospitable regarding conversations of controversial nature. =/

So... Anyone want to try to explain to me in VERY SIMPLE TERMS what's going on with Israel? I hear about the Middle East so much, but whenever I ask someone, all I get is a, "Well, it's hard to explain..."

Jews and Arabs like to kill each other. For the last 60 years or so, Jews have been better at killing Arabs than Arabs have been at killing Jews. Arabs are not happy about this, so they use suicide bombers to kill more Jews. This only serves to give Jews an excuse to use tanks and F-16s to kill more Arabs.

Arabs from...?

And what's that whole thing about Lebanon wanting to be recognized or something?

It doesn't matter where the Arabs are from. Arabs are Arabs.

Lebanon is already recognized. What Lebanon would really like is for Israel to stop destroying their country when they feel like it. It's bad for tourism.

Pretty much anywhere you find 'em, Israel would like to kill 'em and vice-versa. I'd say the 'destroy Israel' sentiment is rather less prevalent in people of Arab descent who live in Western countries, but it's not entirely absent in those people either.

The short answer is "Arabs from..." mainly the places near to Israel. They don't get on with their neighbors, for the reasons described below. To an extent, this has the effect of uniting the otherwise divided Arab world. Not entirely, but enough to make it a pretty big problem.

Perhaps you mean Palestine? There's a whole big dispute over which land belongs to which people, and basically... it has been going on forever. The modern version can be traced back to 1948 when the State of Israel was first established.

It was still going on prior to that, of course. Just in a different form, since there was no official State of Israel. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews began to migrate to what they believed was their 'promised land, which set the stage for the current conflict.

It would be wrong to think that even that migration was the root of the conflict though. I think it could be stated with some justification that the dispute over territory goes all the way back to Biblical times.

I apologise that my understanding is not sufficient to give any more detailed of an answer.

Yeah, I totally meant Palestine (whoops). So are Israel and Palestine fighting like whoa?

Basically my friends tell me just to assume that everyone in the middle east is fighting with everyone...

Well, it's not like you would normally imagine a war. It's more like constant conflict of a more low-key nature, with innocent people getting cought in the middle most of the time. They both claim the right to the same land, so you have people from both sides trying to occupy that same territory a lot of the time.

You shouldn't think of it as two armies marching to war. It's not that simple at all. It's something that I think I'm not qualified to really discuss. I can't really claim to understand it entirely myself, so I won't presume to try and explain it any further.

It's not exactly quite that bad, but the thing about these conflicts is that they never really stop. They just form part of everyday life in some of the worst areas. In some cases, the roots of the conflict go back for hundreds of years, so it's hard to imagine the problem will ever go away.

I'm sure there are relatively peaceful areas in the more prosperous countries. It's not constant warfare all through the region. It just happens to be the case that there are several trouble-spots which have very prominent, well-known problems. I've never been there myself, but I imagine there are places where you'd never know anything about any conflicts.

That is totally what everyone tells me. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS! Sounds like a giant conspiracy to me. A giant, Middle Eastern conspiracy.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. I can totally follow what you're saying. I'm just one of those annoying people who has to understand all the little details before being able to grasp the big picture, and that doesn't tend to work very well with politics...

I guess that a moderately decent starting point would be Wikipedia's Israeli-Palestine conflict page, but remember that it is Wikipedia. Consider it a basis for further study, rather than a source of facts. You'll learn the names of some of the major players from reading that page.

You'll drive yourself insane before you learn all about this conflict though. There are just so many small, but important details. So many groups, so many agendas and so many things happening. It's fascinating, but I don't think I'd ever understand it well enough to try explaining it to others.

I'm just hoping I didn't make any glaringly obvious mistakes in what I did tell you, as basic as it is.

Almost. The Muslims (most Arabs are Muslim, but not all) have two main factions: Sunnis and Shiites. The difference there is basically that one group didn't like the way the first few heads of Islam operated, and one group did. They're at odds with each other, 'cause well, religion does that to people. Kill everyone who isn't part of your religion, or convert them.

The Arab/Jewish conflict has already been covered.

There's one more group of people, the Kurds, who occupy Northern Iraq, but they're at war with the Arabs 'cause they're a different ethnicity (i.e. they look different).

It's the same sort of problems you see everywhere. You don't believe in my. God the same way I do, so I'm going to kill you, and You don't look like me, so I'm going to kill you.

Humans. *sigh*.

Ooh, that helped ramoth.

So 3 basic areas of conflict:
Arab/Jewish (is that more religion-based, territory-based, or race-based?)
Muslim Arabs: Sunnis vs. Shiites (I've heard a little bit about this... Isn't one of those factions particularly radical?)
Kurds vs. Arabs (race conflict)

So "Arabs." At the risk of sounding very ignorant... Is this a really broad term of what? To whom does it refer, exactly?

The territory that is in dispute happens to be sacred to both religions involved, as far as I know. That makes it at least both of the first two, and I think you could say it has evolved to become both.

It identifies an ethnic group that you will find spread out across the whole of the Middle East. They share the common language of Arabic, and the predominant religion is Islam, of one type or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

The most functional definition would be to describe it as an ethnicity, equivalent in that regard to Caucasian, or Afro-Carribean.

Thank you so much! That helps a lot.

Though of course, I always struggle with the difference between race and ethnicity and all that.

And I get confused about such things as, are white and Caucasian the same? Are Asians white? But they aren't Caucasian, clearly. So there must be a distinction... Etc.

As far as I know, the term "race" refers to things which are identifiably different between groups of people originating from different parts of the world, such as dark skin in Africans, while "ethnicity" refers to a more specific subset, which incorporates aspects of both race and culture. As such, I believe that the term Arab is an Ethnicity, since it is strongly tied to a culture, rather than just a genetic heritage.

You mean East Asians, such as Chinese? There's more than one kind of people native to East Asia, and not all of them look white. Some of them have quite dark skin. I believe they are sometimes called "Asiatic", or just "Asian", when referred to as a group.

Caucasian refers to people who originated near the geographic center of Eurasia, sometimes called Caucasia (for its proximity to the Caucasus mountains)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasu...phic_region%29

It's where most Europeans originated from, back in da day. In general, if you're unusure about a term, look for it on Wikipedia. There's a lot of knowledge to be had there. Just remember to take it with a grain of salt and look at the footnotes they provide.