TheNewTeddy

Elections I'll be following in this thread: National: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_2013 Italy - Feb 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_2013 Vatican - Apx March 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_general_election,_2013 Tunisia - June 23 (note 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_House_of_Councillors_election,_2013 Japan Senate - July 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2013 Norway - Sept 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2013 Australia - Sep 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2013 Germany - Sep 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_National_Council_election,_2013 Bhutan (note 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constituent_Assembly_election,_2013 Libya (note 1 & 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Libyan_constitutional_referendum Libya (additional, same notes apply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Libyan_general_election Libya (same as above) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2013 Pakistan (note 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_general_election,_2013 Palestine (note 1 & 4) Local: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_state_election,_2013 Western Australia - March 9 (Note 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013 Falklands Referendum - March 10 (Note 6) Notes 1 - If remains democratic.Free and democratic election in an islamic and arab nation (rare and thus of interest) 2 - Still introducing Democracy, interesting to see how well they manage at it 3 - Nuclear armed nation with weapons pointed at other nuclear armed nation, thus, of world interest 4 - Middle eastern affairs tend to make headlines, thus, of interest 5 - Australia is the country most like ours in terms of how the government is set up; thus interesting 6 - This will be all over the news when it happens, thus of interest Remaining countries are either large, and/or important, and/or rich, and thus of interest to world affairs, even if these nations are not frequently in the headlines. Note I will no longer be following elections in smaller countries due to lack of interest. CHECK BOTTOM OF PREVIOUS PAGE FOR A "POLL AVERAGE" OF PAPAL CANDIDATES

Believe it or not we have some "poll averaging" for the Papal election. It is as follows: 18.97% Peter Turkson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turkson 17.28% Angelo Scola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Scola 10.42% Marc Ouellet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Ouellet 7.15% Tarcisio Bertone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarcisio_Bertone 4.74% Leonardo Sandri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Sandri 4.55% Francis Arinze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Arinze 3.63% Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Andr%C3%A9s_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Maradiaga 3.24% Gianfranco Ravasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Ravasi 3.21% Angelo Bagnasco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Bagnasco 3.08% Peter Erdo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9ter_Erd%C5%91 2.40% Odilo Pedro Scherer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odilo_Scherer 2.37% Christoph von Schonborn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Sch%C3%B6nborn 1.83% Jorge Mario Bergoglio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio 1.49% Claudio Hummes 1.46% Luis Antonio Tagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Antonio_Tagle 1.40% Timothy Dolan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_M._Dolan 1.38% Anybody Else http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_in_Papal_conclave,_2013 1.18% Antonio Canizares Llovera 1.17% Mauro Piacenza 1.13% Dionigi Tettamanzi 1.08% Archbishop Raymond Burke 1.06% Albert Malcolm Ranjith 1.00% Wilfred Napier 0.82% Camillo Ruini 0.73% George Pell 0.71% Robert Sarah 0.71% Piero Marini 0.67% Renato Martino 0.64% Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa 0.60% Norberto Rivera Carrera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_Rivera_Carrera This was determined using betting websites and averaging the odds for 13 different websites, for any candidate offered on the majority of those websites, who had odds above 1.5%. The total chances were then combined with one another to determine this list, which is the possibility, out of 100%, that somebody would win based on the odds offered. It's as close as we are going to get, but given that money is involved, it's logically better than stabbing in the dark. Cardinal electors are from.... 28 - Italy 11 - United States 6 - Germany 5 - Spain 5 - India 5 - Brazil 4 - France 4 - Poland 3 - Canada 3 - Mexico 2 - Portugal 2 - Nigeria 2 - Argentina 12 - Elsewhere in Europe (1 per country) 9 - Elsewhere in Latin America (1 per country) 8 - Elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa (1 per country) 1 - Indonesia 1 - Philippines 1 - China 1 - Vietnam 1 - Australia 1 - Sri Lanka 1 - Egypt 44 - Countries that have had a previous pope (multiple: Italy, France, Germany; single: Poland, Netherlands, England) 76 - Countries that have not

Indeed. One of the things I looked very close at was what position they held. Oulette and Erdo hold positions that mean they have likely met every one of the voting cardinals already, and likely, more than once.

To answer the title, yes The question actually should be is degrading someone who wants to be degraded a bad thing? The answer to that is no.

Most Popes had been cardinals for 5 years prior to becoming Pope. Also, I've been reading media reports from outside Canada, and they all agree without exception that Oulette is where the "smart money" is. All the Canadian news reports, however, suggest other names and only bring him up in passing. I reserve the right to change my top pick prior to the start of the conclave. But my top 4 and top 12 are not going to change. ITALY The final legal polls were taken Feb 8th. The average of the final poll from each firm is as follows: 34.43% - Socialist 28.30% - Conservative 16.14% - Populist 14.44% - Moderate 3.95% - Radical Note that the threshold is not 5% but 4%. My final projection for Italy is as follows: Presumptions: Populists will gain a higher vote total than expected, pushing all other parties down. Socialists will win the election and thus the 344 seats. Radicals will make the threshold. Monti's party will underperform ITALY 344 - Socialist (House Majority) 123 - Conservative 86 - Populist 56 - Moderate (Join Socialist to create Senate Majority) 16 - Radical

This guy may become Pope. That's who my bet is on.

After seeing all of them in action, I'm placing my 'bet' with Cardinal Luis Tagle, from the Philippines, to be the next Pope.

After further research these are the 4 men I can not rule out for some various reason. Of course the Cardinal Electors may not consider any of my rule outs to be their rule outs, but I'm trying to think like they do. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Marc_Ouellet Marc Ouellet Canada Pros: Very good in English, that plus technology could spread the message.. "Not from the USA" "Understands the USA" -IE Canadian. From the "New World". Cons: Could be seen as pandering to the things outlined above - - - http://en.wikipedia....éter_ErdÅ' Peter Erdo Hungary Pros: Able administrator, Experienced as Cardinal, Known for speaking out but not being controversial Cons: First name "Peter" could play into the "Prophesy of the Popes" - - - http://en.wikipedia...._Rivera_Carrera Norberto Rivera Mexico Pros: Very telegenic/good with media. Very outspoken. Charismatic, from the "New World" Cons: Perhaps too outspoken - - - http://en.wikipedia....s_Antonio_Tagle Luis Tagle Philipines Pros: Telegenic/Good with media. Seems open to technology. From Asia, "Ethnic" Cons: From Asia, "Ethic" - - - - - - - - - At this time I'd bet on Rivera, with Tagle in second, and Erdo in third. edit Seems than Ouellet's English Is not as good as Tagle's English (SEE BELOW) Can not find videos of the other two speaking English.

A few things. 1 - I was raised Catholic. My entire family remains Catholic. I am not Christian anymore. 2 - I'm doing the "election thing" in my International Elections thread, as, technically, the Vatican is a country. 3 - Saying all Catholics are pedos is insanity. It reeks of Ian Paisley rising to insult the Pope when he spoke to the European Union Parliament back in the 70's or 80's. There is a stream within Protestantism, specifically a specific kind of Northern Irish - Scottish - English Protestantism, that hates Catholics and anything Catholic. These people are best ignored. 4 - The Catholic church, if it should "do" anything in particular, is read scripture as conservatively as possible. The "Word of God" should not be modified for the modern era. What God wants is what God should get. 5 - The Catholic church, however, should act as liberally as possible. It should not attack gays for being gay. If it believes being gay is wrong, it should focus on helping these poor poor people, not on calling them the devil incarnate.

After a few hours of research, I've determined these 12 cardinals to be the most likely to become the next Pope. Many of them are on media Papabile lists, but not all: Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Ouellet Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odilo_Scherer Hungary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9ter_Erd%C5%91 Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Bagnasco Argentina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Sandri Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_Rivera_Carrera Venezuela: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Urosa Hondouras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Andr%C3%A9s_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Maradiaga Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenon_Grocholewski France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Barbarin Ghana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turkson Philipines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Antonio_Tagle

Note that I will be following the election of the new Pope (Leader) of tiny Vatican City, located in Rome. The Holy See, as the country is sometimes called, is the world's smallest country in terms of size and population, but it's leader also leads the world's largest religious sect (Catholicism). Elections will not be conducted using rules found elsewhere. There is an Electoral College consisting of 117 high-ranking church officials (Cardinals) who are under the age of 80. 2 of these Cardinals may turn 80 before the election is complete. A Candidate will require 78 votes (of 117) to be elected as the new Pontiff (Pope) Election results are not officially announced, but speculation will be abound. I will try to weed though this information and come to you with the most accurate data I can find on who the candidates are (Papabile) and what if any news is available about voting as it is ongoing (usually little to none)

Italy Update: 34.70% Socialist 29.24% Conservative 15.35% Populist 13.13% Moderate 4.63% Radical

Monaco's election takes place on the 10th. Also, a complete and utter shocker in Liechtenstein! First of all, lets examine why: Nobody gives a hoot about Liechtenstein. Now the what: The results were as follows: 10 - Conservatives 8 - Liberals 4 - "The Independents" 3 - Progressives The Independents are a party of people without a whip. I've read the profiles of two of their new MPs and one is clearly a leftist while the other is clearly a rightist. The only thing they have in common is a distaste of how the government is handling Austerity. I expect the Conservatives will find Independents to work with, and rule that way. Either way, considering the only interesting thing about Liechtenstein is that their crown prince's son will become the Jacobite pretender to the English throne, I don't expect to do any updates about this country for another 4 years at minimum.

The list is bunk. Norway belongs high on the list, as does Sweden and Denmark, but the USA is in the wrong place. If you are born in one of the blue states you should be very high on the list. Being born in a red state however should put you lower on the list. Australia should not be that high for one simple reason: spiders. Do you want to be a newborn in a place where a spider is as big as your torso?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/02/01/technology-columbia-shuttle-damage.html A moral and ethical question based on this story, and, this statement: If you knew, would you tell? not tell? why? If you were the one to know, would you want to know? not want to know? why? The first, I'm not sure. It'd really depend on the persons and the situation, but, I think I'd lean towards telling them. The second, I would not want to know. Someone calling you and saying "oh, BTW you are trapped and are going to die either frozen in space or in flames in the atmosphere" is not exactly what I'd call a nice surprise.

The UN has no authority. It needs it's members to back up it's decisions, and as things stand, no members that matter are going to back this one up.

Apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza. You are fully aware of that and are simply trying to troll.

This is not a discussion on Apartheid. This is a discussion on the West Bank and Gaza.

This is not exactly related to the West Bank?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21257765 Here's an interesting story about the upcoming election in Zimbabwe. Here are some quotes from it: "Zimbabwe's Finance Minister Tendai Biti has said that the country only had $217 (£138) left in its public account last week after paying civil servants." "Mr Biti told the BBC he made the revelation in order to emphasise that the government was unable to finance elections, not that it was insolvent."

3rd - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Liechtenstein 10th - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Monaco 17th - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Cyprus 17th - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Ecuador 18th - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Armenia 25th - http://en.wikipedia....eneral_election ITALY MARCH 4th - http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013 - Kenya* 9th - Western Australia 11th - http://en.wikipedia....eferendum,_2013 - Falklands, referendum* APRIL 7th - Montenegro 27th - Iceland Countries in ALLCAPS will get focus by me, while those with an asterisk* after them will get a "minor focus" (similar to Romania or Lower Saxony) Coming up (over the next month or two) I'm going to be doing some history on elections in various nations (IE most countries in Europe [non-soviet nations with over 1 million, plus, some soviet puppets that had democracies prior to occupation], plus Israel, Japan, and Australia) A preview: German election, 1912. Black = Moderate Conservative while Red = Socialist. The other Blue parties are various flavours of Conservative. Of interesting note is Brown. These are Anti-Semetic parties. One member elected in this parliament would go on to serve as the NAZI governor of Hesse, and, in fact, survive the war, and be "denazified" http://de.wikipedia....erdinand_Werner (google translate is your friend!)

Next elections are in the tiny countries of Lichtenstein and Monaco, which combined, have a population of 72,000 (split almost evenly between the two) and a combined net area of 162 square KM (almost all of it in Lichtenstein) Compare this to Vancouver with an area of 114, and Markham with an area of 212. Compare also to Milton Ontario with a population of 84,000 and Red Deer with a population of 90,000 In Monaco, the two main parties are Liberal and Conservative. The Liberals managed to win the 2003 election, and were re-elected in 2008. In Lichtenstein the Liberals managed to win a slight majority in the last election, but sit in coalition with the Conservatives. The opposition Greens have a single seat. Elections occur on Sunday.

Just because 50%+1 can't do something does not disqualify it from being a democracy. If 50%+1 of Canadians in all 10 provinces voted to exterminate the first nations (what kind of situation would ever bring this about is beyond me) then we could do so.

The crux of my argument is that nothing can be both ___ and Democratic. If 99.999% of the people can vote and decide that they want to change the ___, then you do not have a ___ state to start with. Lets say Israel decides to go for a one state solution, with Israel as a Jewish State. Clearly, somewhere in the constitution, it'd need to refer to Israel as a Jewish State. Any truly Democratic constitution needs an amendment procedure. So what happens if/when someone is able to meet those requirements? Israel would stop being a Jewish state. Saying it is one now is just saying it is temporarily one, because you never know when someone will meet those requirements. The only way to subvert that is to write the requirements as to be undemocratic. For example: only Jews get to vote on it. Or worse: If you disagree, you don't get to vote; IE that by disagreeing, you are opposed to Israel as a Jewish State, and thus, disqualified for being allowed to vote on if it is one or not. This is not Democracy. Democracy can not have any attachments or qualifiers on it.

I know comparisons to South Africa are a natural part of the discussion, but I'd encourage debaters to focus on Gaza and the West Bank.