Badmovies.org Forum

Well, it's about a year away from the 2008 Presidential Elections. I don't like politics at all. I probably won't vote next year unless something comes up or I feel the issues are important enough. It looks like a sad bunch. Election time always give me these questions and thoughts below. Other than that I'm just rambling.

You can vote for your candidate above, but this post is more about the election process.

Why is it that there is basically a two party system?

What are the issues?

Are their more important issues?

With communcations technology like it is today why do we need candidates that need to raise money and use special interest groups?

Most people don't have time, but why can't we have a whole four year thinking process to reveal ideas and potential candidates on a national government channel?

Why can't a variety of idea's be put forward by a C-SPAN type media channel that lets the more interesting unexperienced Candidates free access to present truly public ideas?

Candidates would move to prime time spots as viewer interest dictates, not as money dictates. Making the individual public more of a factor with free thinking and becoming exposed to a bigger world picture than what the Democrats and Republicans currently give us. Then at election time the public goes out and actually vote. Naturally their must be a four year candidate weeding out process. Should everyone be given free access to a national political channel?

It's imortant that we have free press, but is it possible elections might be a place where "Free Press" is hands off except maybe reporting on the political process and backgrounds of candidates. The news would have to report equally on a 3 tiered reporting system allowing lower ranking ideas an equal light. Should the press being a business itself be allowed to report on political elections?

If a new election process can't be devised how can things change?

Should elections be based on money? Money and issues? or just the issues?

Should economic factors dictate the direction and totality of the country from the candidate to policies?

Should the Presidency itself be made available to all classes of people? Or is the opportunity to run for President and the ability to make enough money to run for President a type of equal opportunity qualification? Meaning that getting to that level of money access is part of the equal opportunity in this country?

Should people who don't make time to know issues and candidates be allowed to vote? I mean.....What are they voting about?

How do you determine if a voter knows the issues and options?

Oviously the country needs to survive economically. Should big business drive elections or should free thinking?

These things can change our international policies quicker. If there was a democratic one world goverment would this change the driving econimic forces of elections and the need to compete internationally?

How should the country go about electing a President?

You can vote for your candidate above, but this post is more about the election process.

I'm having a hard time getting interested in any of them.


The Democrats and Republicans have been in power so long that they pretty much have the election process to themselves. Almost every state has election rules that favor the two ruling parties and make it very hard to impossible for any independent or third party candidate to even get on the ballot. Their basic concern is third parties or independents siphoning votes off of their candidates.

It's hard to get into a process where the rules are all made by the parties in power and only reflect their self-interest.

I say that we need a new election process.  None of the inventive/smart/different candidates will get the chance to actually run for the presidency.  They will be shut out by the exact same government that everyone seems to complain about.

Nothing is going to change.  The people who are in charge will put others just like them in charge.  Nepotism and public apathy are our biggest problems.

Don't know what the answer is, but I agree with both of you. I mean who are these people? It's just plain weird.

I feel better when I ignore them all. The problem is they might one day effect your life and the people you love.

Must be part of a Divine plan I suppose. A riddle.

Pray for Mercy.

History has demonstrated that multiparty democracies tend to be messy, anarchic, and lend themselves to the rise of dictators (vis-a-vis Hitler rising out of the wreckage of the Weimar Republic and Putin destroying the election process of the Russian Federation). 

The two-party system, for all its flaws, is a guarantor of stability, which is one of the most important features any government can have.  As much as we like to gripe about this country, no people in the history of the world has ever been freer, more prosperous, and better governed than we Americans.

The men who created our Constitution were incredibly brilliant.  They created a system stable enough to produce a Republic which has endured incredible crises, yet flexible enough to adapt and change in response to said crises.

Are there some things we could stand to  change?  Surely.  Are we likely to do so?  Probably not.  As Jefferson said, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light or transient reasons.  Indeed all experience hath shown that mankind are more inclined to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to abolish the forms to which they are grown accustomed . . . "  (I'm quoting the Declaration from memory there, so I may be a word or two off!)

Good thread, BTW!!!

I notice that both Christopher Walken and General Zod weren't on your list, when clearly according to these informative websites below, they are in the running:

http://www.walken2008.com/ (http://www.walken2008.com/)

http://www.zod2008.com/ (http://www.zod2008.com/)

Aside from my rant earlier on this thread, I would say that Bill Richardson would be the candidate I would most like to take the office.  I'll not go into reasons why, but will let the qualifications speak for themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_richardson)

Nice post IndianaSmith............



I see your point of view. Messy is ok, no pain no gain. My point of view has always been the end game which is ultimately a Democratic One World Government free of International Economic competition. A government that can work within a borderless framework. Our current constitution is excellent, and the best thing going, and open to interpretation, but the U.S. being economically on top for the most part we do enslave smaller countries that don't have the resources to ever come out of their economic disadvantage. It's a fact that we send out our "people" at different levels of government or private corporations to secure what the U.S. needs without even attempting to open the borders between us and the third world country we are basically raping. Is that our fault? Perhaps not, but we can change it. In a sense we have created a subversive one world corprate goverment. We just like to say "Oh well....That's business". We do in fact need access to resources, new markets, and/or a growing population to make our current economy work. In the end they must find a different way of making the "economy" work. New markets and/or population growth just isn’t an option any more. A different world view is needed and I don’t mean giving away the store like the Democrats do nor taking advantage of others like Republicans tend to do. Both parties actually do the same things.

Also people want to come here for the freedom's and advance way of life. A nation forfeits its sovereignty when people flee from it to go somewhere else. Land for access. Land for access to modern technologically advance living. If people from other nations are flooding your country then something is wrong with their homeland and the nation taking them in should obtain the lands from which they came from. Instead we give away our technological knowledge for the monetary profit of a few wealthy individuals. Yes patents create incentive and the international sale and international competition to produce these things make them better. We also know other methods produce new advances like space travel and war create advances technology. There are other motivations beside money that have the ability to create new things.



What you have said is true IndianaSmith. Stability is nice and very desireable, but the world is changing with the speed of covering distances and advances in communication. The world is smaller and getting smaller. I say "yes" to a stable two-party system, but maintaining dominance internationally at all cost? I say yes, but with a different approach. New ideas for a new world. Maybe it's to early and the world isn't ready yet, but eventually it needs to change. Eventually our methods need to be more overt than subversive. 



They were brilliant in their time and perhaps always in this earthly realm. I don't know how much they commented on economics in there, but they probably never foreseen the real possibility of a democratic one world goverment, nor would they of had a need to consider it with the wide wide potention of new lands of their time. They had plenty of space. Things tend to evolve over time



Not sure these are transient reasons. Perhaps it's not crunch time, but they will have to deal with it someday. All or nothing. Their will be injustice and suffering under a new type of goverment for the simple reason that people aren't accustom to it. Perhaps things will all balance out with "prudence". If not the earth has it's own ways of cleansing itself I suppose.

No matter we are just strangers and pilgrims passing through this world. Reguardless of how it's done in the future nothing here will last forever.



Dean, I added your candidates.

I think Hillary has it in the bag.  They have all these polls, hillary vs guliani, hillary vs romney.  the real election is hillary vs the bush years.  a dachsund could win that election.  democrats are going to be running against Bush for the next 50 years.

        I myself am a huge ron paul supoprter  He is the only anti state candidate.  the dems want socialized medicine and the fairness doctorine.  the GOP wants more wars and warrentless wiretapping.  no thanks. 

I don't think that Hillary will win.  I consider myself to be an independent but lean heavily towards the democratic side rather than republican.  Despite that, I've never really cared for Hillary and do not support her.  I'd rather see someone like Obama or Richardson run for office rather than her.  If it is up to the people between her and Guliani then Guliani will win, hands down.

As for Ron Paul, I kind of liked the guy at first.  Some of his ideas were good, especially those about existing/new technologies.  I was interested in his stance so I did a little bit of research and found that the guy is out of his mind.  If there is one thing I cannot stand, it's a racist.  Paul seems to fit that bill.  Just do a quick internet search and you'll find everything you need to know about that.

As far as the current candidates are concerned I lean towards Republicans. I believe George W. Bush will take care of Iran before he leaves office. I just don't think the Republicans went far enough and I was dissappointed in the fact that they had the Presidency and the House and couldn't make real domestic nor world change. The run for oil is important, but it's not everything. Think bigger.

On the surface I think Guilani has been given the offical "I was there" vote, but Romney, Paul, and Tancredo look interesting. Where's Newt, Pat Buchanan, and Arnold, and Al Gore? They would make things interesting.  :smile:

Al Gore is too busy doing things that are truly important and getting nobel prizes.  :wink:

If this is the case I definately won't vote for him. Their is no place in this world for racism.

Relentlessly exaggerating the threat of natural global weather forces, single handedly trying to undo all the progress of industrialization, and demanding a ride a bicycle while he rides around in a Learjet?  PUH-LEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't you hear British schools have stopped showing AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH because of its scientific inaccuracies?

The fact is we could implement EVERY SINGLE CHANGE Gore demands and we have NO IDEA whether or not it would affect the world's naturally changing climate.

Indiana,

The problem with internet forums is that my sense of sarcasm doesn't convey well to text.  I was joking, not being serious.  I actually have yet to see An Inconv. Truth and doubt that one man has the answers.

Being on the other side of the pond (the colder side with the warmer beer apparently!) from this, I always try and keep one eye on the elections over there, if for no other reason than it's usually some pretty interesting viewing/reading - certainly far more so than our election process.
From what is a pretty distant view (I tend not to follow too closely until the 'endgame' as it were.) I can't see the Democrats unseating the Republicans this time. Whereas Giuliani seems to be the outstanding candidate as far as the Republicans are concerned, it seems that the Democrats are split three or four ways with equally strong candidates. A similar thing has been going on over here for a while - the Labour party have been screwing things up left, right and centre, but the only genuine opposition, the Conservatives, have had a succession of poor leaders and squabbles in the party, and have been unable to gain any kind of foothold as there is no single point of focus for the entire party to get behind.

I acknowledge that my views may be horrendously wrong, as I have admittedly only paid a little attention to the ins and outs of the process so far.

Jason, your interpretation is entirely correct and is what I've been thinking.  The democrats can't seem to get behind one candidate.  At first it seemed that most of the support was going towards Obama but now it is split between he and Clinton.  Whichever one goes on to run for the presidency as the Democratic nominee will make some people mad.

The Republicans seem to be in a different situation.  They seem to be willing to support whomever goes on to run for president whether it be Romeny, Guliani, or McCain.

If Hilary goes on, then I don't believe I'll vote for her.  If Romney or McCain go on for Republicans then I won't vote for them either - I'll put myself in as a "write in vote".  Guliani I'm still on the fence about but would possibly vote for.

skaboi-  ron paul is not nor ever was a racist.  there was some racially insensitive material on a right wing newsletter he used to put out but he fired the guy. 

the rascists are the frontrunners, none of whom showed up to the black caucus debate.

  he gets called racist because he's anti affirmative action, anti welfare state, etc, but it's typical republican views.  he has tons of black supporters in the meet ups and the alternative media.

 I agree!!!!  :thumbup:

           (http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/l_ff05a70c30f9f4a6e2cbde79fa05e482.jpg)

Wheres PAT PAULSON when you need him??? (http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/2720257524.jpg) Or SUPER PRESIDENT? (http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/untitled-71.jpg)

For the 'hip' teen vote...(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/prez1.jpg)

 I'd vote for....(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/aenprespst.jpg)

...but that's a little too close to this -------------->(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/25307584_43c55f01c8_o.jpg)

As the candidates stands right now I'd have to go with Guliani and maybe even Mitt Romney. To be honest I don't even know what they stand for yet.

Should I be allowed to vote?

RCMerchant I added your candidates. Their as good as any.  :smile:

 Thanx! I recast my vote for ZACHERLY!  :thumbup:  :cheers:

Yea, he's still living. Guess he can still run.  :bouncegiggle:

There was this website years ago dedicated to Marlon Brando. It had an image of him in some kind of political ad that said

"Marlon Brando For President: At Least It Would Be Interesting".

From SCOTT's comments - "My point of view has always been the end game which is ultimately a Democratic One World Government free of International Economic competition. A government that can work within a borderless framework."


I think a democratic one world government is one of the worst ideas ever.  Pure democracy is not an effective form of government, which is why our founders created a Republic, with some democratic features, rather than a democracy.  As Hamilton put it, "Pure democracy is three wolves and a rabbit sitting around the table and voting what to have for dinner."  There can be no self government without self discipline, and over half the world consists of ignorant, fanatical, and impoverished masses who would, if they could, immediately vote to make the rest of us as ignorant, hateful, and miserable as they are.  Not until more of mankind becomes edcuated and enlightened could such an idea ever have a chance.

Well, I'm glad you made note that we don't really have a true democracy. Besides our everyday life you have examples of our own slavery to and in the workplace and the military. Both of which make everything we do work. You don't have democracy in either cases. If you did have democracy you would be able to vote on the business direction of your corporation or which military battles you would fight.

Your right about people. We might not be smarter than in times gone by, but we are more educated.  :smile:

I still think the U.S. or someone must deal with things eventually. A One World Government will eventually happen because we can imagine it. Therefore we must prepare to live under it in a positive progressive manner.

Thanks for your very good input IndianaSmith in regards to Pure Democracy and Self Discipline. I'll keep it in mind.  :thumbup:

A business teacher once taught us about the monster of pure capitalism and pure communism. Neat stuff. A karma for you.

thanks Scott for a thought-provoking post and some good discussion.  BTW, I teach U S Government to our seniors every year!  It's kind of fascinating - I used to be a great admirer of Jefferson and thought of Hamilton as a snobby elitist, but the older I get the more Jefferson seems like a hopeless dreamer and the more sense ol' Hamilton makes . . . .

Really?  I've always found Jefferson to be very practical and of the opinion that eventually any system will become corrupt and too complicated to actually function - thus requiring "maintenance" and, when you are talking about a government, that usually means blood, sweat, and tears.

Indianasmith, the wolves/lambs (or rabbits) analogy brings to mind one of my absolute favourite quotes:

"Democracy is three wolves and a lamb sitting around the table and voting what to have for dinner." - Hamilton

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Franklin

Because nothing says 'liberty' like 8lbs of mutton toting a .50.

Wow, good we have a ringer in the debate.

I'll take a closer look at Jefferson and Hamilton.

I must ask this important question again. Should everyone be able to vote? Shouldn't the candidate also educate the people who are voting for him/her in case the masses forget or never knew these things? Would you want someones vote who didn't really understand what you were doing? It's just a personality contest. Candidates at all levels really don't do anything except say a few things, shake some hands, and don't even follow through on what they say once elected or even try in some cases. They're just happy to be in office. Would we all probably fall to the same fate as past officials if we ourselves were elected? After all there is the opposition group.

Thanks again IndianaSmith. Very insightful. :smile:

The thing is that literacy tests, when they were in use, were exclusively used to exclude minorities, especially blacks, from voting.  The questions given to white voters might be something like "Spell the word CAT using the letters C, A, and T in that order" while the question given to blacks might be "Translate this passage from Caesar's GALLIC WARS from the original Latin into Armenian."  The minute you talk about restricting the voting franchise based on ANYTHING you get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in your face calling you a Klansmen, Nazi, Conservative Bigot (of course, in their lexicon those are all interchangeable terms).  Personally, I would love a constitutional amendment denying all idiots the right to vote forever.

 Zacherle is tied with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.  :teddyr:

the only politics i'll discuss here - because of how heated it can get - is that they need to do away with the electoral votes. Because with this system in places, every vote doesn't count.

not really

And that is a travesty

I agree Susan.  It does seem that no matter what I vote, it won't matter.  That's a shame.  The electoral vote was created because those in power thought that the average person didn't have enough sense to pick a good candidate.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, it's going to come down to the electoral college.

Why is Great Cthulhu not a candidate?

(Why vote for the LESSER evil?)

Didn't know it had already been tried. Shame they had to use it that way. That should tell us something about people in general.

I was thinking more in terms of knowing all the candidates full campaign platforms and who knows maybe even American History related to those very concepts.  :smile:

I mean it doesn't really seem to matter who wins the election if people only watch for a few sound bites, check the candidates hair, and then go out and vote. Guess that's why they call these political parties. They just bring people in and say vote for me here's some donuts and coffee. For some it's like cheering for you favorite ball team. They don't care what the other candidate is saying because their team must win.


Yea, the candidate with the most votes doesn't even win. How does that happen? Not that I wanted John Kerry to win, but it is strange.

What are the chances of the last 2 elections being so close and the country being so divided down the middle? Something smells fishy.


Put him in for you Zapranoth.

I'm inclined to agree with the notion that absolute democracy would be disastrous. There are those who advocate using our modern technology to decide every important issue by referendum. Yikes.

The fact is, for all the thoughtful voters out there, there are still a lot of people who are selfish, shortsighted, naive, ignorant or just plain full of crap. People don't carefully compare platforms, or even necessarily base their vote on anything that relevant. The problem with democracy is that you generally get lowest common denominator.

On another point, the two-party question is very interesting, especially since I've had to read up on various voting systems for a couple of editorials I wrote on an electoral reform referendum we had here in Ontario last month. Here, we have what is effectively a two-party system, but we have managed to retain a third major party (and a fourth at the federal level), and we have a bunch of fringe parties all advocating proportional representation as their only hope of winning seats. The proposed proportional system was a godawful mess that would have undermined democracy as far as I could see. Glad it didn't pass. Ironically, the proponents, for all their talk about democracy, were quick to argue with the two-thirds majority who rejected the proposal.

Anyway, one of the interesting things I read was that a French sociologist theorized years ago that any winner-take-all electoral system will naturally tend toward two parties. One of the main reasons is the strategic voting it encourages. People are wary of how votes might split with multiple parties, and many choose to get behind the most palatable candidate who might actually win. Regardless of who's platform you support, the last thing you want is for somebody you can't stand to take office because you voted for somebody who was barely in the race. Especially if the winner only has maybe 30% of the overall vote. In a way, people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils in order to make the most of their vote. Ultimately, only two parties are left standing.

It's more complicated than that, of course, but that's the gist of it. You can see why some people advocate a proportional system as more fair. Imagine the US senate or the house of representatives filled with percentages of Democrats and Republicans (and any other party) based on their share of the popular vote. It sounds good until you ask who decides which politicians get in. Instead of local people elected by a constituency, you have party hacks who finagled their way onto a party-chosen list. They get put into office without really being accountable to voters.

Then there is the inevitable proliferation of parties of various political views, and the agony of trying to get anything done in a government controlled from half a dozen different directions. And the single-issue crackpots who manage to get a seat by scraping together a couple of percent of the overall vote.

No system is without its pitfalls.

Andy C.-speaking of getting the lowest common denominator...ZACHERLE-the Cool Ghoul-is up over all the others in our poll! GO-ZACHERLE!!!!   :thumbup:  :twirl:  :cheers:

I went with none of the above.  All I want is lower taxes and less government, and for people like me there's really no reason to show up at the polls. 

jack- not to be a nerd, but if those are your concerns I'd strongly recommend the clip of Ron Paul on the Jay Leno show I posted a few threads below or check out his columns as lewrockwell.com  i think you will be pleasently surprised at how he addreses those issues and I'd becurious to see what you thought if you have the time

I agree that using techonology could be a scary thing for voting, but I just can't stand directionless parties. I really don't believe the Democrats nor Republicans represent what the new world should be about.


Guess we can't just have some standard for knowledgable voting rights. Besides what is real knowledge? People just say stuff and they feel they have to defend it even if they deep down know they are wrong. No one has a right to judge I suppose. It's all up in the air. Free grabs for anyone clever enough to get in office.


That is interesting. I'll keep this in mind. Forgive me but I've really been bent on a one world goverment and how to get there with the use of all assets and energy to accomplish it. I don't see it now, but someday it will happen. It would be a bit less bloody if we let the big wigs handle it with their corprate interest and buy up what we need.

Just wish they would figure out how we can get 25 hour work week with full benefits.  :thumbup: :teddyr:

Nevermind, some eager beaver would just spoil it and work overtime raising property values, because the landlord/or mortgage company who knows Johnny will work overtime to get a better place to live.


I voted for Republicans for the same reasons, but then again I've never seen any candidate that remotely comes close to my views.


You mean they wouldn't be accountable to a larger majority of voters? I can see that. That would also mean that current elected candidates are accountable. This is a strange thought. Sorry about the sarcasm. :smile:


You pointed out a lot of very good things AndyC. This last part about a crackpot managing to scrap together enough votes would be very real and very dangerous. You made it more clear. I will completely rethink the idea of pure democracy. Maybe if the new world thought is held a little longer the answer will come. I'll keep my ears open. Perhaps change equals to much danger.


Would like to thank IndianaSmith and AndyC for very informative responces to our democratic elections systems. More in depth than anything I've heard. Not totally convinced that their isn't another way, but it gives you a new appreciation for the stable form of goverment(s) we have here in the U.S. and Canada.

You have to love those futurists of the 1950s in their wide-eyed innocence, predicting that technology would make work easy enough that we could all finish our weekly tasks in just a few hours. Had they been businessmen, they would have considered that it would also be possible to lay off several people, make one guy work a 40-hour week, and put all of the extra productivity into profits.

No Stephen Colbert option?

What a shame!

Yep, there's just to much daylight.

It's time for the creative leisure mind with all day to do new things and create new things. Rather than only working, eating, and sleeping. We sleep a third of our life, we work the second third, we spend the remaining hours getting ready, driving to work, getting healthy meals together, spending an hour or two with the kids if we're lucky, going to the grocery store, yard work, and maybe a few minutes to figure out how to get out of this sadistic cycle and start our own business or just entertain ourselves. If we are able to save a few dollars and have a job that allows time off you might even get to go on a trip or something.

Actually I get more done when I have a schedule and routine fitting in something new with the spare 5 minutes we get each day. The more time I have off the less I do. Then again if I had a lot of time off I would figure out what to do. Then again I probably wouldn't have any money to do anything if I had lots of time off.

Well according to the stats I've been on this message board for 18 days this year. Nevermind.  :teddyr:


RapscallionJones, your wish is my command. 

The electoral college, while many don't like it is in fact the best way to go. I understand why some don't like it, as it is not easy to understand. One if many reason being is that what works best in densely populated area doesn't work in less dense areas and it's the best way, albeit a little flawed to strike a balance in representation of the countries many areas. If you was to go with a popularity contest which the forefathers never intended you get imbalance between the rural and urban areas resulting in strife between those areas leading to what we had in 1861. There is tons of information debating the two options, and time and time again it models show that the electoral college in the end produces the best results for fair and even representation of the nation. Not the winner but the representation.  So would if be fair it a metro area like greater LA with 28 million people or so carries as much weight as a combined number of states could based solely on population? You'd have a rather large areas a little more than ill if you were to try inflict urban values on rural areas. Equally if you based results in area (land mass) alone then in the last election the republicans would have won by a land slide (no pun intended). In fact they'd win most every election is that was the case, so that's not fair either. Again the electoral college will give you the best results, even if you don't like the end results. Our forefathers were very wise men indeed.

edit:typo

Gosh, I'm truely stunned by the knowledge of our forum members. You guys are good. Thanks CheezeFlix.  :thumbup:

What about the eventual One World Goverment?

Thank You.


Never happen, the UN can't get on the same page. So a OWG would never work and the reason why is the vast range of differences between the nations of this little blue planet. There would be to much give and take that I doubt any nation would accept.
What rights are you willing to give up to appease other nations under a OWG? Will you convert to Islam? Will you put your child to work for 50 cents a day? Do you want to pay 75% taxes to fully support the poor nations? What standard of living would you accept that would be agreeable to the other 6 billion folks. Will you accept Chinese censorship, Indian wages, Russian or Middle Eastern social control, Danish liberalism? Shoot we can't even get states to agree standardized national law.

I'm inclined to agree with CheezeFlix. It takes more than government to hold a nation together. It takes a shared culture. Yes, some places are more cosmopolitan than others, but when you look at the big picture, there is usually one more or less dominant culture in every place. Maybe someday the world will become sufficiently homogenized through information technology and high-speed travel that we won't need to worry about that, but I don't think that would be a good thing. I like some variety.

Of course, even with a common culture, smaller communities always form based on, among other things, simple geography. The people in Town A will be the rivals of the people in Town B, even though they're only a couple of miles apart. Or maybe it's two schools in the same city.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in his book The Tipping Point, about people having a more-or-less hard limit to the number of people they can really know, and about communities having an optimum population. Basically, the farther you get beyond the magic number, the harder it gets to hold things together.

I would personally disagree with the idea tht the government holds the country together.  It tears it apart, look at this war and this election.

ABCnews.com has this Match-O-Matic poll that you can take to find out who your top three candidates are.
It doesn't take very long to do.  About 5 minutes.
It chose Dennis Kucinich for me but I wouldn't vote for him.

So far, my choice is Barack Obama.
That may change as the election draws nearer, but for now he's my choice.

TAKE THE MATCH-O-MATIC POLL (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346)

Post your results.

But it does. Don't confuse the guy who happens to be in a particular office right now with the idea of government as a whole (laws, elected leaders, police, building inspectors, social workers, etc.)

Small groups might not necessarily need any specific leadership, small communities might get by without a complex system of laws, but when you get into numbers too large to form a real community, you need a support structure. The more people you have, the larger and more complex it needs to be (although opinions vary on just how large and complex). This is further affected by the general willingness of people to take responsibility for themselves. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, if people can't control themselves, control needs to come from outside.

Other forces work in reverse, such as common culture and values, social norms, customs and etiquette, and so forth. Without those, government alone could not hold things together against all the forces pushing it apart.

sure, I just don't know that our current central government is providing that for us. most of our tax dollars go to fighting wars in the middle east, subsidizing stuff we don't use and beaurocracy.  I think we could do a better job ourselves.  after all, it's all our money that pays for this stuff anyway.  and we STILL have cruddy looking roads,  38 million living below the poverty line and terrorism up the ass.

I'm not against order or for chaos, I just don't see how the state having a monopoly on this has benfited us too much, espeically recently. 

We are only on this earth for a short time then we go to the next world. There is a better place to come.

Concerning this "physical" realm:

My point of view is a little bit different. Let me explain. My wife of 20 years is from a different country and we have a daughter between us age 19. I've noticed that their is a change in both of us over the years as far as how we live and see the world and our daughter is very American, but also has a larger world view than most. Now as parents we no longer hold to the old ways as our parents grew up with. We follow the future. Taking the best of of the world and bringing it together. Image if Israeli's married Palestinians.

The same race marriages of today are fine. Don't get me wrong. Everyone should keep their existing voes to whom they are married to. Perhaps in the future when there is much much more interracial marriages we will see things change dramatically. Even to the point of not allowing the the next generations to inbreed with same race marriages. Young people would have to go outside their race and eventually national borders to find a mate. No racial incest might be the call of the future. A new aspect for religions to bring people into a One World Government. All come from Adam and all return to Adam figuratively speaking. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and end.

Democratically speaking I really think a goal should rule not a person. With a one world government we could put all our time and energy to getting off the planet as one people.

If we can't have Democratic rule what's needed is another Alexander The Great. He married all his soldiers off to women of each conquered land. Add to this that people who flee another country and come to the Western world for a better life. Those nations from which they flee forfeit their sovereignty and the nation(s) who take on the burden of accepting these peoples get to obtain the lands. Those countries lose their sovereignty and they are eventually made states and transforming them into something better. Manifest Destiny. Land for access. Mass migrations of peoples to and from. People here might want to invest and develope the new lands we acquire by right. Because corrupt and bankrupt nations lose their sovereignty. Which is ok, because they become part of the One World Government. They become citizens of the new world. Flesh and blood anchoring earthly reality creating the new world. I think it's a matter of time before other people see it. 

I think it's possible. It will happen eventually if true. It could happen sooner if Providence allows it to be known. Perhaps it's being protected for a time.

Just a thought.

Government can and does take many forms. Look around the world and throughout history, and just about everything has been tried somewhere at some time. You could have a king, a dictator, a council of elders, a parliament, a corporation or a continuous polling of the public to make decisions, but they all serve the same purpose, and they aren't all equally good. Every system has its problems, and even the best have to wrestle with the questions of finance, poverty, aging infrastructure and crime.

I'm not against the war, but I'm wondering how we can maintain our current economy with the war costing $200 million a day and the total cost reaching 1 trillion as we speak. Guess it's just a drop in the bucket. :smile:

To be perfectly honest, it's tough to find a Republican with a platform that doesn't include at least some vague talk of tax cuts around the fringes, but at the same time he'd like to increase spending on a host of issues. 

Time and time again it has been shown that tax cuts increase revenue because the money you save on taxes you spend on stupid stuff you don't need pumping that money back into the economy which results in that money being taxed many times over. Since the tax cuts government receipts have increase far above projection by all of the so called excepts. It's economics 101 put money into the economy revenues increase, take money out (i.e. taxes) you create a recession. The less you have to spend the faster you stop spending on fast food, movies, trips, and other non staples and in turn the folks doing those job that you and I waste money on are out of work and nursing from the government tit and not paying taxes. So raising taxes in fact reduces government receipts.

And if one says they only cut the riches taxes, as it stands now the top 10% of wage earners pay over 71% of all taxes and have you ever worked for a poor person? The rich provide jobs. Take their money and you take your job. 


That'd find something else to waste it on that does that average citizen little good.

karma to Cheeze for his brilliant defense of the electoral college!!!

That is exactly what our founders feared - in a direct election, the residents of our teeming cities would wind up choosing the President over the wishes of the sturdy citizen farmers who were the backbone of the Republic.

Hey Cheeze Flixz, in my case you're preaching to the choir  :smile: 

jack- I know you are cynical (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)  but I promise you, this guy is different. 

He wants to get rid of the IRS for one.  and all our bases around the world.  and gradually ween people off of entitlements.  He's frmo the old school man.  the OLD school.   "conscience of a conservative" type anti government GOP

Personally I'm all for a National Sales tax and do away with income tax and specialty taxes (booze, smokes, gas), reason being is that all the unreported income, the underground economy is not long hidden from taxes. Anytime you buy something (barring housing, utilities, food and medicines) you pay taxes on it.
You make a $1000 a week you take home a $1000 a week, you spend $500 week on stupid stuff, you pay national sales tax on the stupid stuff you or I buy. You want to pay less taxes then spend less money on stupid stuff.

This would tax all the underground economy and maybe, just maybe stop some people from buying more than they need and going into debt and then paying interest on the taxes they'd charged on a credit card.

This would empower the tax payer to control through their own restraint the amount of taxes they pay. Think about it, how much money do you make every year that is hidden from taxes, ebay sales, direct sale, scratch off winning, etc. Do you report it and pay taxes on it? That is a tiny tiny drop of the underground economy, a national sales tax would tax this money if you spend it and not tax it if you save it.

Cheezeflix, your amazing. I don't have the numbers to verify the diffence between sales tax and regular yearly tax, but your last two post on taxes makes a lot of sense philosophically and probably in reality as well.

What you and IndianaSmith said about the backbone of the country voting. Their is something to say about that, but now most of our farmers really aren't U.S. citizens anymore from what the news has been telling us. This would make the electorial college voting system a goverment regulated system that changes the outcome of things based on something that doesn't exist instead of letting the pure mass vote determine things.

I understand what you said about a discipled democracy. We can create different types of new voting blocks to suit different people and purposes as well. The subject of fairness is an issue. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

the problem isn't taxes it's spending.  the federal governement spends 3 trillion of our hard earned dollars every year.  Unless that changes there is no way to collcet the taxes that will put us in any sort of better predicament. 
BUt no one on either side wants to say no.  spending increased by almost a trillion under the republican congress with a republican president.  who would have predicted that?  then again, who would have predicted that the new york times and that same republican president would hqve colluded to get us into a war that has now cost us 2.4 trillion.  I wouldn't have predicted that in a million years

Government (over) spending is only a symptom of the real problem which is voter apathy. People don't get involved and say enough is enough. The only recent exception to that rule it the recent amnesty bill the the voters shut down and many politicians were appalled that voters DARE tell them what to do.
Yesterday we had the state governor election here in glorious KY and we had in my county a whopping 30% turn out ... 30% ... that is pathetic. Only 30% of the registered voters choose to exercise there right to vote and yet 99.9% will exercise their right to b***h. They couldn't take the few minutes it takes to go vote, but you can bet your ass if they wanted ice cream they find a way to get to Dairy Queen. So voter apathy of "I don't care" and "what I say doesn't matter" is the real problem. Because as the old saying goes "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
All people have to do is pick up the phone and say no to wasteful spending, or write or email. If people in mass make their voices heard change can happen. But if you say nothing then silence implies consent and congress is going to think what they are doing is ok. They are like a kid in a candy store with Mom and Dad's credit card, if Mom and Dad (i.e. the voter) doesn't say "No you don't need 200 lbs of gummy bears." then that kid is going to get 200 lbs of gummy bears. The voter is the parent and the the congress is the child and it is the parents job to steer and guide and tell the child what to do so that they may not screw up. And if the parents doesn't do anything then they have only themselves to blame. Call congress, write them what ever get their attention and put a stop to partisan politics and make the clowns do what best for America, not what best for their party, otherwise toss the bums out.
When congress and government is out of control it is because the voters and their collective apathy let it happen, it's time they are reeled in.   

ok I'm don't for now ... next.

Well said CheezeFlixz. I think I'll be quite now and be more active.  :teddyr:

Thanks, but to be active you can't be quite ... I have Mitch McConnell my rep and Senate Minority Leader on speed dial. A long with Ed Whitfield and Jim Bunning too. You want to see voter apathy at work ... ask around your work or town to see how many people even know who their Reps are, you'll find most people don't even know who there congressmen are, but you'll find those same people whining about government.

Remember you eat an elephant one bite at a time. Think about it.

Maybe you and I should run for Prez and VP, Cheeze. Flip ya for the top slot . . . .  :teddyr:

One of the most fascinating things I ever saw was a county by county election return for the 2004 Presidential election.  THERE WERE NO BLUE STATES!!! In every state, the rural and suburban areas went for Bush while the largest cities and pockets of deep poverty - the lower Mississippi and Rio Grande valleys, for example - all went for Kerry.  In terms of square miles, it was staggering how LITTLE of the country voted for the man from Massachusetts.  The map was reproduced in USA Today and I hung it on the wall in my government class.

Overwhelmingly, the poor and ignorant vote for the most liberal candidates, while those who are middle and upper class (with the exception of the academic and entertainment elites) seem to go more conservative.  That map educated me a great deal.

Try this map for size ...

For you in Rio Linda ... the Blue is LoopyLib's and the Red is evil NeoCon's

(http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg)


Indiana you don't want me running for the Whitehouse ... my first act would be to disband congress. Second act would be that you speak English or you get out. And if we fight a war and win the war we plant a flag and start building Wendy's and Home Depots.

this is the USA Yesterday map you speak of ...

(http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/2004election.jpg)

Congressman? I don't even think I have speed dial. I must be way out of line. I'll have to get with the program. One Home Depot at a time.

That's one reason I don't say to many things against capitalism till I become successful at it myself.

That's one reason I don't like democrate party candidates. They do use minorities to get into office. They really don't help.

I guess I don't really see the IRS as the problem - they're a bunch of bookkeepers and bureaucrats.  The tax code is the problem.  The never ending increases in taxes in every way shape and form possible.  They nibble away around the edges - always the edges - until the whole center is gone.  What really makes me mad is all these politicians babbling about the rich and how bad off the poor are, while at the same time the middle class is barely keeping their heads above water.  Oh man, I could go on a good rant right about now  :teddyr: I don't really see a sales tax fixing this.  I predict it would take one nanosecond for them to start fiddling with that around the edges.  It would even give them more edges to work with, as right now they've basically got income brackets to work with.  Imagine how much fun they could have with thousands of categories of products, each one descended on by a lobbying group with dollar signs in their eyes.

As far as our overseas bases, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.  Some of them certainly, but when a real emergency does happen, it's nice to have a large base in that part of the world so that troops can get to the trouble as quickly as possible.  The whole centerpiece of our defense strategy is based upon getting where we need to go as fast as possible.  You can have all the power in the world, but if you can't get it to where it needs to be, it's worthless.  Of course it's debatable as to whether we need to get involved in a lot of stuff, but it's certainly important that we have the ability to do so when it's actually necessary.

Gradually weening people off entitlements - I wish I could get excited about that.  With all the demagoguery, lies, spin, and voter ignorance, all designed to make the tiniest decrease in the rate of increase out to be a drastic cut, I don't see the subtle approach working.  Somebody needs to stand firm in the face of all that BS.  I honestly think the only way entitlement spending will go down is when they enact a gigantic tax increase on the working men and women to pay for all this crap and people can no longer afford to live in a house or pay for anything.

Anyhow, I may be a bit cynical.  I suppose as far as candidates go, if Ron Paul gets the nod I'd vote for him. 

Entitlements ... I find this word to be bazaar. Here is what those that are currently REALLY entitled to in my pay your way world , they are ...

Entitled to get off their ass and get a job.
Entitled to work hard and get an education.
Entitled to take the jobs that American don't want to do. (but illegals do)
Entitled to get off the government tit.
Entitled to be a productive citizen and tax payer instead of a tax leach.

Now with that said I'm talking about the able bodied people that have nothing wrong, no physical or mental handicap that are living off the government 'brestestes'.

If you look at the maps I posted above you'll see that the areas with the largest amount of entitlement leeches are largely shades of blue. And the current field of blue is running on entitlements handouts ... it equate to a nanny state with mommy government telling you what you need, don't need, and were to live. The government can't manage their own books, they need to stay out of mine.

Jack - a national sale tax without income tax will come closer to working than the tangled mess we call the tax code that changes every day. You don't want to know what I spend on CPA's just to keep legal and follow the ever changing tax code. A sale tax would be simple and would not require a huge bureaucracy to insure compliance. Is it the perfect solution? NO, every plan has flaws, just find the plan with the least flaws. The IRS needs to stop auditing people and begin to audited itself.
If you (the government) could capture a portion of the underground economy you could reduce the overall rate of taxes that everyone spends and in turn, maybe just maybe get people to live within their means.
I have rental property and I have people that get government aid that are renting from me, but somehow they can afford a 50" flat screen TV and Bose surround sound system and a new car, high speed internet and computers ... how? But they can't afford to buy their own groceries or pay they own rent? Something is wrong with the system when those collecting government aid live better than those trying to pay their own way.  I have tenants that refuse government aid and opt to give up some luxuries of life in order to do what is American ... make it on their own.

It is in fact our job as citizens to give people a hand up, not a hand out.

I'll stop ranting now before I go on a tangent ... :teddyr: 

 

Cheeze, you're a pleasure to read. I can agree that for every person legitimately disadvantaged, there's a bunch more who simply believe they are, as an excuse for not trying, or feel that the world owes them a living. Making things worse are people who feed that in misguided efforts to help.

My wife used to work at a big downtown church when we were in the city. They ran a shelter in the winter. On those nights, doors got kicked in, equipment went missing, crap got smeared all over washrooms, the caretaker was fishing needles out of the toilets, people were smoking and drinking wherever they wanted, and harassing church people who were using the building at the same time. There were also a lot of teenagers with perfectly good homes abusing it as a place to party.

The people running the program were the first ones to defend all of this, refusing to enforce the rules or hold anyone to account.

In my view, that shows less respect for the homeless. It reduces them to the level of animals. Treating them like human beings means holding them to some standard of behaviour.

And God forbid somebody should suggest that simply giving out food and shelter is not enough, that maybe these people need some counseling and assistance in bettering their own situation. Nope, just there to give them food and shelter with no strings attached.

To me, that's just enabling a lot of the people there who could do better if they applied themselves. More than a few knew they were dealing with a bunch of idealistic suckers.

My wife figured it out quickly enough. Part of her job was to administer the church benevolent fund. She heard more BS than you can imagine from people looking for a handout.

"I need money for food"
"I can give you grocery vouchers"
"I don't want grocery vouchers, just give me some money"

"I need money to go visit my mother"
"I can give you bus tickets"
"I don't want a bus ticket"

"I need money to pay for a prescription"
"I just need to confirm that with your pharmacist"
"No"

And if a story wasn't working, it simply changed, sometimes several times. And if all else fails, they'd resort to "You're the church. You're supposed to help me. What kind of Christian are you?" This from the guy who started things off by lying to a minister.

Of course, the other minister there was a soft touch, and kind of lazy. A couple came in looking for a handout once, and this guy just let them loose in the hall where the rummage sale had been set up. Just take whatever clothing you need. They were walking out of there with armloads of stuff, including stereo equipment.

It does no long-term good to simply redistribute wealth. It discourages responsibility on the part of the recipient, and it discourages the generation of wealth at the other end. It invites dishonesty from everyone, from the tax-dodging earner to the fraudulent recipient.

Thanks AndyC you've only scratched the tip of my common sense approach to life. I have like time for moochers, whiners, and 'oh woh's me' crowd.

I try to refrain from my all out out and raves ... but I too, see to much of it.

I have a tenant who was behind in his rent I offered him work to pay it down, he didn't want it when he found out the work ACTUALLY required work. So I evicted him.

I said Work or Street ... your choice. He took the street, sad, really sad. I took most of his stuff too for his back payment. It's in the lease personal property forfeitures for monies owed. I guess if they got an education they'd understand that part of the agreement.

QUIET !  QUIET !!  BOTH OF YOU QUIET !!!

"The POOR and IGNORANT".

 Hmmm. So...the poor equates ignorance? Does RICH equate smart? BS!!! That is the STUPIDIST thing I have ever heard.
 Get rid of Congress?
 Ok...and then what, Mein Fuhrer?
Make the poor work.
 Gee...we're too IGNORANT to work for  SMART rich people!

 Mebbe the poor and ignorant should not be allowed to vote.

 The currant run of  lying bulls**t on BOTH sides of the fence is sooo  deep...and sooo self centered...it's not even about what we want any more. I'ts about two elite groups telling lies to the public to get power. And f#ck the liittle man. UGH!!!


 A bunch of salesmen?

 "Your neither. A Deleivery boy,sent by the grocer,to pick up the bill."

"Bazaar?"  Bizarre!  Bizarre!!  BIZARRE!!! 

Ahh you caught me using the wrong spelling of a word. So yes, I'm guilty of a spelling violation ... sue me.

No, my friend, I "caught" you twice, though I'm not at all interested in suing. 

Off Topic I think the frantic bold text and exclamation points in Allhallowsday's corrections just made that hilarious for me to read.

On topic, it's interesting reading about the process in America.  We're currently in the middle of an election campaign here in Australia and it's interesting to draw comparisons to the system. 

The biggest difference is that here voting is compulsory.  I don't know why it's your choice in America, but I think forcing people to vote does help, even if you have what is called a 'Donkey Vote' [voting for mythical candidates/not really voting just showing up] happening.  It ensures it gets attention at least.

Fines are given out if you don't vote.  I'm sure that'd be a huge pain in the butt logistically with your country, but I think it's an important part of a country's election process if you have only 30% people voting.  That is just insane to think that only 30% have an actual say in who gets elected, whilst 70% just sit back and biatch the whole time.

I'm sure that's not totally accurate, but still, you get the idea.

Though I'm also sure that since our population is only 21 million, it'd be a LOT easier to organise our voting system, than it would be to have compulsory voting in the US.

Anyways, I've already voted, since I'm leaving overseas next week, a week before our election.  It's a fun process, and really isn't that much effort, especially if you can vote before hand at your leisure, like I did.

Ah well...

Yup, I think compulsory voting would be a tough thing to enforce in the states. But it wouldn't be a bad idea here in Canada, with only about 30 million population.

It does go back to Edmund Burke. The problem is that people shirk their responsibility to vote, so it becomes necessary to make them vote. It's really ironic when you think about it - making people exercise a democratic right. The problem is still apathy. If people took their duty seriously, it wouldn't be necessary. But maybe if people have to vote, they'll start to take more of an interest. Has that been the case in Australia?

There's nothing I hate more than listening to one of those many people who equate cynicism with wisdom, spewing nonsense about all the candidates being the same, and how it doesn't matter who gets elected, as though they have it all figured out. The rest of us suckers who vote are naive. We're wasting our time comparing platforms, familiarizing ourselves with candidates, making a side trip on the way home from work to check a box or pull a lever or whatever.

It's nothing but an excuse for not getting off their butts and doing the same. I really hate that, especially when it's said with such pride. That is my biggest peeve, people who take pride in their own ignorance.

It's hard to say whether it has made people more interested, since I hang around with some fairly politically-minded folk anyways, but I'd say that per capita we probably have a better strike rate of interest vs non-interest.

Of course you get plenty of people who just don't care, show up election day, tick their name off and just do whatever, but even then at least it gets them there... the people who just plain don't want to vote at all just won't, but the ones who are just lazy and are forced to may take it a bit more seriously.

It's interesting though, since as far as I know, there aren't that many countries with compulsory voting.

Of course on your latter point AndyC, as I may have mentioned before, the two major parties are so similar that only a few key policies separate them, it's just that I hope that the a-holes in power [they aren't bad, I just think they're all pricks] don't get re-elected.  I'm sure I'll feel the same way next election [as in, the new guys are just as bad] but at least we got a change.  Our current Prime Minister has been in power for 11 years, and has very much lost touch I personally think.

Anyways, yes, vote if you can...  simple as that.  It takes no time at all, and helps sustain primary and high schools with important barbecuing revenue...

My own cynicism comes from the fact that back in the early '90s when I first got interested in politics, I was a single male in his mid 20's working 50 hours a week and barely able to afford rent, car insurance, etc etc etc and a couple of beers and a pizza on Friday night.  I looked at my paycheck and a third of it was gone, right off the top.  How wonderful, I thought to my naive little self, if only government would cut taxes.  The whole middle class would be able to dream of moving from an apartment into a house, to buy the stuff they wanted, to live the American Dream.  So I read all kinds of books on politics, watched Washington Journal on C-SPAN every day, never missed the Sunday talk shows, got involved in all the internet forums, etc.  And best of all there were all these politicians telling me exactly what I wanted to hear!  Oh boy, was I ever excited.

Long story shot, here it is a decade later, we had a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, and did any of the long-standing republican policy positions get passed into law?  In any meaningful way - in a way that a person could actually notice in their lives without having to watch C-SPAN 24/7 to find out about it?  No, we got a war and that's about it.  We wind up with the usual trade off, in order to mute opposition to the republican's somewhat less-than-popular program the democrats are given carte blanche to have all the spending they want.  

In my own state, we've got a Republican governor who just pushed through a gigantic tax increase that's cost me more money than pretty much every other tax increase combined.

I used to vote Libertarian, but they don't even bother to publish the vote totals for them in the newspaper.  

Wow, never knew Australia had compulsory voting. It's actually a great idea even if people only come out and fake vote. At least they are involved. As IndianaSmith would say "Disciplined Democracy". It could work here in the U.S.. I mean they make it mandatory to serve on Jury Duty here. They could do the same with voting.


You said it Jack. Your absolutely correct about Republicans having complete control and not doing anything noticeable. For as much as I like them and find them fountains of safe goverment I think fellows like CheezeFlixz, AndyC, and IndianaSmith got all the rules of the game down so well they forgot to use some creativity when it comes to the future. They are abiding by the old tried and true type of government without addressing future evolutionary realities.


You know I think politicians just make up this whole tax thing. You know we also sleep 30% of our life. We are probably being penalized for sleeping. Why can't mankind evolve into something that doesn't need monetary gains to be motivated to work?

If you keep people confortable you can get their vote. I really think the world has it all messed up.


Added them to the Voting Poll above. You can delete your current vote and revote for new candidates as desired.  :smile:

Your mother must be very proud ....


ANYWAY ...

Back on topic, I don't think compulsory voting is a very good idea, are you really going to be interested in the process and the system if you face criminal charges if you don't vote? The prospect of it being a crime is not going to instill interest. I know it wouldn't work in the US, with the way this country is right now and the prevailing attitude of many of populous I'm rather happy many of them don't vote. reason being is that they are so ill informed their voting blind. They listen to the talking point and buzz phrases id they listen to anything and never really look to see what kind of person they are really voting for.

Just for the sake of argument ... what do the supporters of Hilliary really know?

Why won't she release all the first lady documents in the National Archieve?
Why is her documents the very first of the First Ladies to be sealed?
What is she hiding?
What has the women ever done ... really? What has she done?
How strong can she be if she can't dump her cheating husband?
Where is her experience at leader ship on a grand scale?
What has she done as a senator?
What legislation has she introduced?

Just a thought ...
These are rhetorical questions ... I've already arrived at my own answers.

I could ask (and do) various questions about any candidate from either side, Republican, Democrat, Independent or fringe parties. And that NOT what many people do, to many people are nothing more than lemmings following the crowd right over the edge. I'm Democrat, so I vote Democrat. I'm Republican, so I vote Republican and so forth. Here's a novel idea vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. And to be honest I'm not real impressed with anyone running, but I'll vote and I'll vote for who I think best of the choices I have, because one of them is going to win. 


Because PRIDE is in a coma.


1st: Think again.
2nd: What Evolutionary realities to you foresee? I ask seriously and not sarcastically.

Here are the future evolutionary realities I see. If we, the US don't get our collective heads out of our collectives asses where going to be a minor player on the world stage.
We'll no longer be a super power and be nothing more than a former power. Our economy will take a dump and the dollar will have so little value that those cheap goods you and I buy from overseas will become unfordable. If we continue to let the boarder go unchecked the 3rd world nation that is Mexico will be the 3rd world nation of America. If we continue to offer hand outs instead of hand ups we'll continue to foster a nanny state society were people can no longer provide for themselves. If we don't put more importance on education and ethics we'll deserve what we get. And if we don't learn from the past we're bound to repeat it. And I hope I'm wrong.
 

These are some of the kind of things I'm talking about. We can't have compulsory voting because which ever party pushes the idea will not win the election. Therefore even if it was a good idea it would never happen.

As far as going to jail over it is concerned. Your either part of society or your are not. There will always be rules.


A democratic one world goverment would change things. No more competing internationally and no more taking advantage of people.

The choice really seems to be choosing the lesser of two evils again or entering a totally new world.

Thank you for getting me... it was intended to be humor.  It's not easy for some to laugh at one's self, but I do it all the time !   :smile:   :thumbup:

I gave you a karma for it earlier this morning.  :bouncegiggle:

Now IF that is directed at me I laugh at myself all the time ... I just laugh it you more.

THAT'S A JOKE SON! (I didn't say it was a good one.)

I could say I'm dyslexic; which I am and you are picking on the handicap and that's not nice, but I don't make excuses for my typos. :smile:

Why not? 


Oh, by the way, your use of "their" was intended to be a contraction of "they are," "they're..."   :wink:

And I think the legion of zombies that voted George W. Bush for President (particularly the second time) should have asked these same questions:


You laugh "it" me mo'?  Well, now, I am proud... I live to get a laugh...

I voted for George W. Bush in the second election and I do love a good zombie movie.

The catch with evolving into something better, whether we're talking socially, spiritually or whatever, is that we will never have a chance to do that if we ignore the present reality. We need to look to the future, but we also have to do the best we can with what we have to work with.

No doubt. We have to work within the existing parties to make it work. Transforming them completely over time. The rifle used by our forefathers will never be able to compete with the weapons of today. Sonic and Microwave. It has to be done with what parties already exist, so again you and CheezeFlixz are correct about getting on the phone to your representatives. 

 I dunno...I wish there was a canidate I could feel comfertable with. But I am totally dissilllusioned by the constant dishonesty and and nepotism in goverment. The super rich and clever will continue to exploit the poor and ignorant. And that's dangerous....Because when the goverment stops caring about the poor-that's could lead to some serious problems.

 I myself make a little over 10.00 an hour. I generally work about 45 hours a week. Tara Sue is on kemo--- she is bedridden a vast majority of the time. I have NEVER applied for welfare...I agree that throwing money and handouts to the poor is merely enabling alot of them to remain that way. Why work if the money is free? And boredom is a big time breeding ground for alcholism and drug addiction. I don't have the answers...but I have'nt heard of any solutions they would work. Back in the Great Depression-people WANTED to work...to improve their lot. Nowadays,it seems that the welfare state has robbed them of that.

  The powers that be have lost site of the real day to day hardships of life for the lower classes. They are comfertable sending the poor and ignorant off to die for there oil interests. Tara Sue's son is in Iraq right now. He's a grunt in the Army. Living in an agricultreal community...the job options are mighty slim. And Jim didn't have a real great school record. So collage was out. The service is a way out for a man...and to keep the poor ignorant is a good way to supply manpower for the war. And educating the poor to qualify for better paying jobs means that no one would be here...in towns like Lawton...to put food on your table. Or make parts for your oil burners. It's a viscious circle. Keep the mexicans out? Will YOU work for under the table wages picking cabbage or fruit? Or in a factory at 70 hours a week in a non unionshop;,no health benifeits,or retirement benifeits? I do......yet I am the exception to the rule. Most of even the full time workers are eligible for some kinda welfare...I refuse it on ethical grounds. I believe in the work ethic. And it works...I own my old fixer upper farm house...and I am proud of what I have worked hard for. But that is rare in a welfare nation. Do I have the answer. Hell no! But of those running for office-I think they have less of a clue than me. Because they don't live here. And they may say they care...but I highly doubt they loose much sleep over it.

  But I believe in miracles! Zacherle is still in the lead!!!  :smile:

RCMerchant, I hear ya.

If I didn't have a family I would just enter the monastery.

Actually it's been said that the feudal system was the best way of life. Not that I entirely agree. 

As far as compulsory voting, they did a study about 10 or 15 years ago concerning "uninformed voters", people who weren't interested in politics or informed on any of the issues, but who showed up to vote because they thought it was the thing to do.  Anyhow, they asked them what issues were important to them, what their stance was on those issues, and who they voted for.  As might be expected, about 50% of them voted for a candidate who had views which were diametrically opposed to their own. 

Well said, BELA.   :thumbup:

RCMerchant makes a good point. I'm pretty sure my views have been shaped by the newspaper business, first working long hours for minimum wage in production and circulation, then working tons of unpaid overtime in the newsroom on a straight salary. My situation has improved considerably, with having two incomes in the family a big part of that. I now have the challenge of working under the same expectations while putting my family first.

But what used to annoy me to no end was that for all those years in my 20s, driving an old beater, living at home, wearing the cheapest clothes I could find, never taking a real vacation, I was never considered poor enough to get any breaks from anyone. I hated not being able to afford nice things, yet never qualifying for any kind of assistance if, for example, I wanted to further my education or do something else to try and get ahead.

It's the people working their butts off for low pay who deserve a break.

Speaking of the News Media. Do you think they should be allowed to report on the candidates? Being that the news media is in business to make money?

AndyC have you ever been told you can't cover a news story? or heard of fellow workers being told they can't report a story?

Or do they simple send a reporter on a given assignment? How free are you to ask what you want and have it published or aired?

A resent report said that in order to run for President it would cost upwards of $1,000,000,000.00 (a billion) You are correct in order to get into politics today you have to be a member of the super rich elite and this is sad. What we need a common citizen who is in touch with the reality of the plight of the everyday American. Someone who has had to choose between health care and a house payment, some one who been out of work because their job was sold overseas, someone who can't make a decent wage because the illegal worker is bring the average down. But that will never happen because the person is to busy working to feed their family to take time off to run around talking about all the great things they have done and will do. When in reality their more of a legend in their own mind than anything else.
Why do we have a $9,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION) debt? Because the ultra rich in Washington do not know the value of a dollar. They've never had to save, they've never had to do without, they've never gone hungry so their kids could eat. They fly around in their private jets and tell us to cut back, they get $1200 haircuts and pretend to relate to the poor, they spend their entire life being a member of some aristocracy in a country that isn't suppose to have one.
Congress needs term limits, it needs fresh blood and new ideas, the president needs the line item veto to cut wasteful pork barrel pet projects like the bridge to nowhere. Military leaders need to left to run the military and not play 20 questions on the world stage. And most importantly the voting public needs to get involved and hold their elected official accountable for the state of the nation.
I was eating lunch today and I saw our County Judge Executive (like mayor of the county) and I stopped and asked him, "So tell me Jim, what have you done for the county this week?" I got a blank stare, so I asked again "What have you done for the county this week, beside collect a check?" ... Now I know our County Judge pretty well, he live just down the road from me and I think he is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. Point being I ask him question every time I see he and it makes him very uncomfortable, he want to smile and shake hands and I want to know what the tax payer is paying him for, because we've lost 5 major employers here, and nothing new is coming in ... you know this story as you likely have one just like it in your town. But the 5 BIG employers here provided jobs for over 40% of the work force and with in 3 years that 40% was out on the street and when the population isn't working everyone is hurt. People left in droves and the few remaining low wage jobs there were out there were filling by immigrants that would work for minimum wage. Point is to many politician think that they are in some sort of members only club and are not accountable to the little people outside. Well they are accountable and it's not members only and you, you, you and you need to stay on they ass and get others involved and stop it with the damn apathy. These people aren't smart enough to know their screwing up unless we tell them, no matter what they think.

I've been staying out of this one, but I'm enjoying the discourse overall.

Scott, you may want to look up a book called The European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin. It seems to be something along the lines of what you are thinking of in a worldwide governing body. I personally don't agree with his assessment of the European Union, and I don't see a one-world government happening (people are too partisan by nature, as well as being too fearful of the unfamiliar or unknown), but it is at least an interesting idea (I read an excerpt from the book as part of a class I am teaching).

As for my views on our current political quandary, I would point out to Jack and others concerned about how little progress was made under Bush with a Republican Congress backing him up: Bush is not a traditional Republican; most in Congress are. Traditionally (okay, at least since Reagan), Republicans have stood for lower taxes and smaller government (if you will recall, Papa Bush lost his reelection bid primarily because he saw no alternative but to break his promise of "no new taxes"). W, on the other hand, has increased the size and scope of government tremendously, costing us freedoms that will likely never be regained and giving the feds inroads into our daily lives that probably have the founding fathers spinning in their graves. This is not a "Republican" policy. Over the course of history, Democrats and Republicans have basically switched platforms several times, and we may be seeing that happening now (or W could be an anomaly; only time will tell). I'm speaking in very general terms here. Lincoln's Republicans were radical progressives, while the Democrats of the time were the conservative party. That changed dramatically with FDR, who catalyzed the Democrats' change into the more progressive party, leaving the Republicans as the conservatives. Reagan was probably the epitome of a conservative Republican (at least in the White House). Things seem to be going topsy-turvy again, but, as I said, only time will tell for sure.

Personally, I'm more of a Libertarian in that I would like to move the balance of power away from the feds and return it to the states. I realize this isn't going to happen, but I hate to see the progressive erosion of our freedoms in the name of "national security" as well as the increasingly intrusive nature of government in general. I strongly believe in the philosophy that "he governs best who governs least."

Oh, I'm free to pursue just about anything. Of course, I have to be able to justify its news value, and I'd better be sure I can back it up if somebody wants to get litigious. It's happened to me before.

No, I've never been told to stay away from a story or a particular person, and I've always been allowed to put my own views into editorials. Now, community news is a little bit different from the big dailies, but we still have our controversies. And we're actually owned by one of Canada's big national dailies. Same company I worked for at my last job.

Really, as long as the paper makes money, reporters get a pretty free hand. There are the things we're obliged to do - assignments, events, breaking news, crime, politics, etc. Then it's generally up to us to find our own stories. It's another one of the requisite skills for the job, right up there with writing, interviewing and understanding various laws. A reporter actually has to know a little bit about everything, or at least possess the ability to get the gist of something very quickly when the need arises. I could be writing about a court case, a zoning issue, a maple syrup producer and a hockey player for the same issue. I either have to understand it or learn what I need to know.

But getting back to the topic at hand, no, I haven't been forbidden from covering a story. I've been urged to give something a rest if I've started to go overboard on something. Basically, if you can find an excuse to stir the political pot, they love it. Just don't make it personal. If a story starts to get tiresome, if it looks like you're going out of your way to pick on somebody, or advertisers start getting put off, then the folks upstairs might start to get antsy. But we're hired for our expertise in the field, and they know enough to let us do our jobs. Most of the people in management started out on the front lines (either news or sales), so they know.

Just to add a bit more info, here at least it's not considered a criminal offense, just a fine, which is akin to a parking fine or something [unless a parking fine is a criminal offense in your country I don't know].  I'm sure something might happen if you consistently didn't vote, but still, you don't really hear of anything like that happening so it seems to be pretty smooth.

The reality is, if you really don't know what any party's policies are, you don't need to vote at all, just fill out the form incorrectly or write on it 'I vote for Bruce Campbell' etc etc, and it is duly ignored and we move on.

Of course you have heaps of parties nobody knows anything about other than people who have their platform in their name like 'the coalition for climate change' but these groups are purely minority groups that make up less than 2%.  We are pretty much a two party system here, with a couple more on the outskirts who occasionally get a one or two people into the senate/etc.

A great idea would be if someone got funded to run for parliament based on having a cool name for their party.  I can imagine people in their apathy, voting for the 'Jedi Coalition' party just on a whim, and you'd probably get more votes than 'Carers Australia' or one of the other minor groups.  It'd be an interesting experiment if you had a few spare hundred thousand dollars.

Here like anywhere else you have your traditional party voters in which family passes on their voting preferences to their kids.  But politics is big news, and whilst there may be a few donkey votes out there, most people tend to take it seriously enough.

I think the important thing is discussion of issues.  Someone above said that there is alot of apathy out there, and alot of people without a whole lot of knowledge about not only the system but the people running.  In an ideal world you wouldn't need to make it compulsory to vote, because everyone would, but we all know that's silly.

Personally I think that it helps here, because it promotes discussion, especially times like now when we are mere weeks away from an election.  People who may have spent the last three years not caring, now may suddenly start to sit up and take notice.

Like I said, I hang around with some politically minded people, ranging from various views of my hippy-ish friend to my right wing Liberal voters.  But that being said, more people seem to be interested here than in the US.

The way I figure it, if I start to get interested in politics, and talk about it with a friend, he may start to and talk to another friend and so on.  I know the world won't work as fluid as that, but I don't see how being cynical about it and just not bothering will help.

It's the same as life I suppose... but I'm probably too young to have been broken down on society yet.  :teddyr:

That's why I like threads like these.  Not only am I learning more about personal views, and the system in the states, but people have been making some excellent points which have been good to read.  I may not agree with everything everyone is saying, but I'm always open for an intelligent discussion, and so far we've gone well with this.


Anyways, on a side note, speaking of taking welfare, it was very interesting reading about people in the great depression in the US.  We did a vague bit of study on it a few years ago and it was interesting reading about people caught up in the depression driving to go and get welfare.  They're so poor because of lack of jobs etc, but owned cars.  I think that's what classed it as so 'Great' in that it affected middle society so suddenly.  My how things have changed.  You still get people who don't claim things, but we have developed more of a 'why not' consumer driven society that it's such a part of our society. 

Anyway, continue discussion with this silly side post from someone not involved at all in US politics.

I don't know man in this country the voter apathy is palatable, so many people are so self absorbed they can't see the forest for the trees. They only see there small little world and rarely if ever the big picture so I doubt many would take the time that is require to get interested in big picture. Some will, but I'm afraid many will not. I hope I'm wrong about that, I'd just be happy if the people that did vote were alive, legal and only vote once.

Let's face it our current field of candidate from every party is less than impressive. I haven't heard a straight answer out of any of them on any issue. The democrats are to busy running against Bush who's not even in the race and the Republicans are all over the board on every issue.

Let for sh!ts and giggles take one issue in the court of public opinion ... Illegal Immigration.

88% of the American people according to a recent Zogby poll want illegal immigration stopped, the boarder secured and the those that are illegal here, out.
During the resent amnesty bill the public shut down the capitol switchboard in outrage to defeat the bill. It was a victory for the American people and I felt good that so many people got involved. they felt passion about something and acted on it.

But on illegal immigration to listen to anyone from G.W. to the field of fools running to replace him I haven't heard a straight answer yet. I've heard a tons of double talk and politicese.

Phrase like ...
"We need to look at that."
"Path to citizenship."
"Serious issue."
"More information needed."

etc etc

And what the American people I believe want is for someone to stand up with some backbone and say the boarder will be secured, and do it. We will heavily fine those that hire illegals and do it, no exceptions. (You take away the jobs the illegal will go home or get legal.) and if you catch an illegal there's no hearing, no court just a swift boot to the next plane headed to there country.

On the war, the Democrats are doing all that can do to get out before the election because they don't want to be faced with having to withdraw, it won't look good for them in the eyes of history. They want to blame republicans at any cost up to a surrender for all practical purposes and that is unacceptable. It's not a Republican war, it's an American war and the Democrats need to take some ownership, after all that voted for it too. (and passed it) when they call it George Bush's war I want to get on the next plane to DC and go b***h slap a few of them. It's [slap] an [slap] American [slap] war [slap] we're in this [slap] together. [slap, slap, slap] And after that go home

And if I hear the phrase "Failed Policy" come out of a left wing lib's congressman's mouth a again I'm going to puke ... ok if its a failed policy present one that will work!! Put your grand ideas where your big ass month is at and present a better plan, but they never do. They just b***h and point fingers and that gets us as a nation nowhere. I'm so sick of partisan politics, why can't these clowns be Americans first.

There are times I want to be apathetic, because the more you pay attention to it the more you wonder how anything gets done with all the childish bickering that goes on.

 

Interesting to hear that Australia has its fringe parties as well. We have a few here who are champing at the bit to either get someone into parliament or a provincial legislature.

The problem is they know perfectly well it's never going to happen as things stand, so they don't even try. In last month's Ontario provincial election, one of them actually just stuck a convenient warm body on the ballot in the riding I was covering. She lived hours away, and as far as I know, never actually visited the riding she was running in. Her opponents never met her. I never spoke to her, even on the phone. The campaign signs were generic signs with the party name.

For a lot of them, an election is just a soapbox. They get candidates on the ballot, then give their spiel in debates and interviews. A hundred people or so then use their vote as a gesture of support for the ideas presented.

Of course, they all have their eye on changing the system. I mentioned the Ontario referendum earlier. With proportional representation, they would just need to scrape together a couple of percent province-wide to be handed a seat representing no particular constituency. They'd also be able to pick who actually becomes the member. The idea is loaded with problems, but these folks claim it is the only way for all votes to count (everybody wins, yay).

What they don't consider is that they already have as much power now as they'd have with one, two or even half a dozen seats in the legislature. Unless you have enough seats to form a government, either on your own or by forming a coalition with other parties, your only power is talking. If these small parties endeavoured to behave like real parties - developing platforms that go beyond an issue or two, electing a party leader, staying active between elections - they'd have that much power already. And they might also have a chance, albeit slim, of getting someone elected under the existing system.

But the problem here is that these one-issue parties see the legislature as they see the election - something to use as a soapbox. The difference is that while an election campaign is a big, chaotic talkfest, the government needs to run at least somewhat efficiently. It does no good to have members yakking away about pet issues that might or might not be relevant (which some already do). Making matters worse, a proportional system would reduce the number of seats held by the winning party. It wouldn't change the winner, just give them a minority government, which would mean that they have no hope of getting anything done unless they can get enough of the others to agree on something.

Really, those fringe parties are just trying to hijack the process to get their own message out. They do it during elections and they'd do it in office if they could. But the latter has the potential to do some real damage.

And as I've said, they already have as much power to talk and pester and lobby as anyone else right now. What it comes down to is people trying to get more than their democratic rights, even if they sincerely believe they're after fairness.

Derf, about 17 years ago Jeremy Rifkin was talking on C-Span about the 25 hour work week in Europe and the idea of sharing work. This took me into all sorts of ideas regarding the amount of hours we work in a week and the real value of property, etc. I was also into Alvin Toffler at the time. Maybe this weekend I'll go to borders and look up Jeremy Rifkin's book EUROPEAN DREAM. Might also pick up AndyC's recommendation THE TIPPING POINT and some good book about Jefferson/Hamilton as IndianaSmith eluded to. What I find with people like Rifkin who may have a good idea is they don't have a divine force behind it to make it dynamic, but it can be a benificial read.

Interesting about the parties shifting completely. Makes you wonder.


I remember when third party candidate Ross Perot was running and they were afraid it would drive votes away from Republicans.

A third party would need more than a couple issues to drive it. That type of party wouldn't know what to do with the Presidency even if they obtained it.

karma to Scott for putting me and Cheeze on the list . . .

although I notice we haven't gotten any votes yet!!!


And may I add, to the whole forum, that this is one of the best and most enlightened political discussions I've read anywhere.  Maybe watching B movies is a sign of superior intellect.  Let's ship copies of the entire Ed Wood collection to all the candidates in both parties, just in case!

Going to throw this conversation off a bit, but I just did this test.  Apparently I should support Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd in that order.  I don't care for any of them.

That actually happened in the 1990 Ontario provincial election. The New Democratic Party (our third major party) typically gets a small share of seats, and generally represents the left in our federal and provincial governments. They're a long-established party, but they have a lot in common with the fringe parties, in that they seldom win enough to have any real influence. Usually, the most they've been able to do is hold the balance of power by either supporting somebody else's minority government or forming a coalition with the runner-up.

I should explain for the benefit of Americans. We in Canada, as in other Commonwealth countries, use a parliamentary system. We don't elect our leader independently of our representatives. We basically have parliament at the federal level and legislatures in each province that all work more or less the same. Each riding (electoral district) elects a member. Parliament has a seat for each riding. The party winning the most seats forms the government, with their leader becoming prime minister (or premier in a provincial election). The heads of the various ministries are then appointed from the elected members of the winning party. The party in second place becomes the official opposition, and appoints a "critic" for each of those ministries.

However, when a party fails to secure a majority of seats, and simply has more than anyone else, other things can happen. In order to pass legislation, the party in power needs the support of one or more of the other parties. That's when a little party like the NDP can hold the balance of power, as they've done a number of times. Minority governments are fairly cautious, because they are vulnerable to no-confidence votes. Basically, if certain important pieces of legislation, such as a budget, fail to pass, a new election is called. That happened to our federal government a couple of years ago. Federally, there is actually a fourth party with considerable influence, the Bloc Quebecois, who do extremely well in Quebec, but don't run candidates anywhere else. But that's really beside the point.

A party failing to secure a solid majority might also never get the chance to form a government if two or more of the other parties agree to form a coalition to secure a majority. They basically combine their seats and form a government. The NDP has also done this. I remember them joining with the Liberals in the late 80s to take the Ontario government from the Conservatives.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the Ontario NDP, most idealistic of parties, chock full of academics and perhaps a little short of business people, went into the 1990 with the usual aim of getting the message out and winning as many seats as possible. Their best outcome would be a minority government that they could influence. However, voters were p**sed off with the current Liberal government, and they were still p**sed off with the previous Conservative government. So, a lot of voters said "To hell with it, I'm voting NDP."

I don't know if all of those voters actually wanted to try the NDP, or if maybe some of them thought of it as a protest vote with the chances rather slim that the New Democrats would actually win. They did, with a solid majority. Nobody was more surprised than the NDP themselves, who never expected that they'd actually have to form a government, and might not necessarily have had the best-equipped people in the legislature for the job.

Five years later, with everything in a mess, the voters booted the NDP out in favour of an ultra-conservative Conservative government that took things in the opposite direction entirely.

The NDP does get elected in other provinces, but that was the only time the Ontario NDP got the chance. They've never won federally, and I doubt they ever will. Most people consider their strength to be pestering the governing party, not actually governing.

This is interesting. You would think that this is the way it should be. I mean if your going to have the leadership of a nation you should have the rest of the supporting spots to achieve your goals. Having your party in and then you put the parties chosen leader in after the election.

What do you think CheezeFlixz and IndianaSmith? Is parliamentary government better?

This could happen in Parlimentary rule also, but sometimes I wonder if the Democrats and Republicans are just toying with us. With them actually being on the same side. I mean, with the parties completely shifting over the years. It seems they must be taking turns being "good guy" and "bad guy" when really both are inpart in cahoots to a degree to perhaps offset or comply with some international policy. Their constituents never figuring out what is actually going on. With no real changes happening. When a new party gets into office they just blame the other party, the press promotes it, and the world believes it. When in reality they are both really going in the same direction. Dangling minor issues before us as if they are major issues. A grand game for the rich elite. Strickly for entertainment? Or something else? Are the elections choreographed to suit corperate needs? Do we as people need to know? Is it better if done subversively by the rich elite or do you prefer it all be done overtly by the people? Is the direction of a nation better done behind closed doors? Is Democracy just another way to manipulate people? To pacify people into making them feel free? Can we ever really know what is happening?

Short answer ... no.

Disclaimer I'm not expert on Parliamentary Government so what I state is not all inclusive, as some parliaments do not subscribe to all these designs.

So why not, because the controlling party of parliament elects the prime minister and that means that if the Democrats were a parliamentary party they'd elect the prime minister (President) which means someone like Hillary, Nancy Palosi, Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy would be in charge of the nation ... and that scares the crap out of me. And should you too. You place to much power in the executive branch and have no true separation of power. No checks and balances.

The public needs to elect the leader of the nation, not the "parliament".

There is also no independent body to oppose and veto legislation and you'd have government run crazy in this power hungry society. The democratic party would have this a socialist country in nothing flat. Astronomical taxes and widespread entitlements in a wealth redistribution society, undermining true capitalism and self reliance of success or failure.

Parliamentary Governments will work in some country as many countries have adopted it in either a single or dual party system, I just personally don't think it would work in the US.

I could be wrong it's been known to happen.


Primary reason you do your own research, never expect to get the truth from the news. In today's world the most press has an agenda and they are going to slant in favor of their political position. Objective reporting went the way of the Dodo bird.


These questions are why so many have apathy and these question are EXACTLY why they shouldn't. Hold you elected officials accountable, ask them question let them know you are watching and if they fail you at every turn then be passionate about getting them out of office at the next election.

They work for you, you don't work for them. Take your government back.

Wow, another solid stance by CheezeFlixz.  :thumbup: :teddyr:

Especially the last comment.

The Press in this country is a joke. They go for ratings...= entertainment...not important news ..= dull and boring to the MTV, You Tube generation.

A lot of truth to that RC the folks today have painfully short attention spans and can't focus for more than about 3 minutes tops. We live in a world of sound bites and talking points with no real substance. It's your job to gather you information from all the sources you can find and DO NOT rely on the politicians to do the right thing. When you get that information you pass it on you tell others and hopefully one or two of them will tell others and so on, and if enough people tell enough people that tell enough people the clowns in Washington listen much to their chagrin at times.
The thing is people don't want to get involved unless they can connect the dot to how it will effect their life and it all will effect their life in some way, if not directly, indirectly, but unless people see that, they don't care.
Often it's just to much work for them to do, it's easier to set back and let someone else do it and then roll the dice that it's the right thing.   
 

Just to clarify, the winning party in a parliamentary system chooses their leader in advance of an election. The position of party leader is never vacant, or at least never vacant for long. If a party needs to choose a new leader, and an election is expected (terms aren't necessarily fixed, but I won't go into that) they aim to have their new leader well established before an election. The only time a party would choose the prime minister between elections is if the current PM were to give up the party leadership (or die, but that's never happened). Party leaders usually only resign right after elections if they lose, or in the case of a PM, close to the end of a term. The new PM is expected to call an election as soon as possible to secure a clear mandate from the public. Since PMs tend to resign after they've, shall we say, overstayed their welcome, the new guy isn't usually in for long.

The party leader is an important part of the campaign, since we have to look not just at the party platform and our local candidate, but also the person who would be prime minister if that party won.

That is where I think the system has problems. Most people vote as though they were simply voting for prime minister. They look at the party and the leader and decide if that's the government they want. The local candidate, unless he's a cabinet minister or likely to become one, isn't really important to most voters. I suspect this is partly due to Canadian voters seeing so much of the American system, with a leader who is elected directly.

Personally, I vote for the person I think would make the best representative, but that part of it usually gets lost in a campaign that's all about parties and leaders. This is where I think there might be something valuable in the American practice of electing your local representatives separately from your leader.

AndyC, I picked up THE TIPPING POINT at Borders. It's like a busines marketing book which is right up my alley of reading subjects. Thanks.

They didn't have THE EUROPEAN DREAM by Rifkin. I'll order.

There were many books on Jefferson and Hamilton, so I'll have to investigate a little further.