The states need more parties

[mjmacky]

The U.S. presidential system has always been on my nerve. I'm trying to sort through the convoluted mess that is the bicameral parliamentary system used in other democratic states. I think I would prefer a Parliament since their discussions don't seem like eulogies or Marriot banquets; additionally they seem to have more parties.

This essential two party system would be better if voters didn't have to align themselves with a party during registration, and could vote/troll the primaries and Caucasus Mountains. During my reading up on all this, I found inspiration in a new signature.

[megabyteme]

During my reading up on all this, I found inspiration in a new signature.

Agreed on the need for additional parties, but unfortunately, the ones that pop up are filled with nuts.


RE: New signature-:lol: I'm certain those within a 4-6 inch radius of you can feel your frustration.

[mjmacky]

RE: New signature-:lol: I'm certain those within a 4-6 inch radius of you can feel your frustration.

That distance could increase depending on the age of "others"

[Artemis]

It actually always fascinated me that the U.S. regards itself as a bastion of democracy when in fact the electoral system is anything but democratic. The real power is with the lobby groups, so the politicians are literally up for auction rather than election, it just depends which lobby group 'funds' their respective electoral campaign.

The Declaration of Independence is a very high-minded document draughted by some very forward thinking minds at the time, but the practice of politics in the U.S. is radically different to the ideals propounded in that document.

I can say this from the position of living in a country with an MMP electoral system for members of the Parliament. The politicians themselves may not like it, in fact they just had a referendum with the last election to see if we wanted to change and this was resounding a 'no'. There is transparency for electoral campaigns too, since there is a cap to the amount of funds that can be spent on each type of advertising in a campaign, as well the fact that all contributors to an electoral campaign must be named, so there are no lobby groups that can fund elections anonymously in an attempt to skew the result.

Any party that can get more than 2% of the vote has the right to be represented in Parliament so we have the complete spectrum represented from the left to the right, but they must work together in order to govern the country and get the laws passed that they want.

[mjmacky]

It actually always fascinated me that the U.S. regards itself as a bastion of democracy when in fact the electoral system is anything but democratic.

It fascinates you that the U.S. mouthpiece has lips made of ass cheeks? It's an expectation as far as I'm concerned.


Any party that can get more than 2% of the vote has the right to be represented in Parliament so we have the complete spectrum represented from the left to the right, but they must work together in order to govern the country and get the laws passed that they want.

I want this. The executive branch is more of an inner circle in presidential democracy, largely owing to the allegiances formed to obtain the position. It's all a bit of a joke really. The same could probably be said about every government, but I guess the grass on the other side always seems to have less anthills.

[temisturk]

No matter what the system the country still ends up being run not by the most moral nor the most altruistic, the kindest, the furthest sighted nor the smartest. It ends up being run by the one (or few) who excels at personal promotion both in the public eye and behind the scenes with the others they make deals with. That said, a system which forces them into open cross-party collaboration can serve to curb their excesses. And a genuinely free press can help. Also, politically inclined bloggers. Basically, the closer we watch our leaders the better government we end up with.

[OlegL]

I actually think the U.S. political system is superior to the British political system. There is a clear separation of powers in the U.S., checks and balances exist between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. As far as I know, in England, the British Prime Minister and the Parliament can't control one another the same way the U.S. President can control the Congress and vice versa. I don't know how good the German and French political systems are when you compare them to the American system. And, I may be wrong, but isn't it true that in some American states, voters don't have to align themselves with a specific party before voting in primaries or caucuses?
The American democratic system is good and it's strong; that's what I know.

[temisturk]

That just reminded me. I've heard that the Swiss system is very good. I don't know the details, but I do know they have a lot of referendums. [And also that they just voted to allow downloading to remain legal, which suggests they are not under the thumb of industry interest groups.]

[Artemis]

That just reminded me. I've heard that the Swiss system is very good. I don't know the details, but I do know they have a lot of referendums. [And also that they just voted to allow downloading to remain legal, which suggests they are not under the thumb of industry interest groups.]

Other pluses, they are great at making watches, elaborate cuckoo clocks and Toblerone, but they get a huge minus for not having ANY beaches. :yikes:

[manker]

The idea of referendums every third Wednesday is sweet but it makes no sense at all.
Referendums are fine when it comes to matters of the heart, such as changing a flag. But the notion of asking the great unwashed if they think we should, for example, increase the funds provision to alleviate foreign banks gives rise to an irresistible urge to double face-palm.

The thought process behind the voting would be; 'fuck those stavros cunts, I'm saying no' or 'I like kebabs, so yes' or 'Lesbos sounds like lesbians, fuck yeah'.


Also, the ability to watch our leaders via closer ties to each other has the unfortunate side effect of hamstringing decision making. Whereas in the past, a sound decision would be made at face value without debate in half a second. That decision now, no matter how blindingly obvious, has to have approval from seventeen different departments.

The result is usually placing wood approximal to architrave rather subsequent to the equine sally.

[anigav]

Agree.. at this state we need more panties :huh:

[mjmacky]

that's what I know.

Someone should teach you the difference between "know" and "think". That someone probably could have been me, at this very moment, if it wasn't for the near certainty that it would completely ineffective.


The Swiss have a direct democracy
France shares a presidential system with the U.S.
Germany has the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, so that's already cool.

[Squeamous]

The idea of referendums every third Wednesday is sweet but it makes no sense at all.
Referendums are fine when it comes to matters of the heart, such as changing a flag. But the notion of asking the great unwashed if they think we should, for example, increase the funds provision to alleviate foreign banks gives rise to an irresistible urge to double face-palm.

The thought process behind the voting would be; 'fuck those stavros cunts, I'm saying no' or 'I like kebabs, so yes' or 'Lesbos sounds like lesbians, fuck yeah'.


Also, the ability to watch our leaders via closer ties to each other has the unfortunate side effect of hamstringing decision making. Whereas in the past, a sound decision would be made at face value without debate in half a second. That decision now, no matter how blindingly obvious, has to have approval from seventeen different departments.

The result is usually placing wood approximal to architrave rather subsequent to the equine sally.

That's not quite what the Sweden has: it has a direct democracy composed of elections and referenda. Anyone can raise a policy point for referendum, they just have to get enough support. It's not a case of asking the population eveery five minutes what they think, it's a case of the population being able to raise policy it thinks is right for it not have it imposed on them. That's the system I'd like.

[OlegL]

The Swiss have a direct democracy


That's interesting! So, Switzerland's direct democracy is similar to the one the Greeks had in ancient Athens? As far as I know, only extremely small areas can have direct democracies, but still, it's hard for me to imagine how it's possible to have a direct democracy even with the population that is as small as 1,000 people. I mean, all of them have to come to meetings where they have to discuss government issues and other similar things.
But could you please explain more what it is that you don't like about the American presidential system?

[mjmacky]

That's not quite what the Sweden has: it has a direct democracy composed of elections and referenda. Anyone can raise a policy point for referendum, they just have to get enough support. It's not a case of asking the population eveery five minutes what they think, it's a case of the population being able to raise policy it thinks is right for it not have it imposed on them. That's the system I'd like.

I also confuse Sweden and Switzerland all the time.

[mjmacky]

I mean, all of them have to come to meetings where they have to discuss government issues and other similar things.

I know that sounds strange to you, but that's only because you've never had a job.

[Squeamous]

I'm not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Sweden's direct democracy.

[mjmacky]

I'm not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Sweden's direct democracy.

As also so am I

[Artemis]

I'm not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Sweden's direct democracy.

I was talking about Toblerone, and the tragic shortage of beaches :naughty:

[Squeamous]

I'm not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Sweden's direct democracy.

As also so am I



I'm not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Sweden's direct democracy.

I was talking about Toblerone, and the tragic shortage of beaches :naughty:

Stop confusing me! I don't know anything about Switzerland's version. Happy to be enlightened. It'd better be good though because Sweden does everything better than everyone, ever.

[OlegL]

Sweden is quite a big country and it has millions of people. How is it possible to have a direct democracy in this country? It's not possible for millions of people to come to some place and discuss government matters. Stockholm alone probably has millions of people.

[mjmacky]

Stockholm alone probably has millions of people.

It's crazy, am I right? I heard many of them are Swedish.

[anigav]

Stockholm alone probably has millions of people.

It's crazy, am I right? I heard many of them are Swedish.

Yup it is with a population of 1.37 million in the urban area, and around 2.1 million in metropolitan area. The Stockholm metropolitan area is home to approximately 22% of Swedish. :naughty:

Interestingly selling sex is not illegal in Sweden, but buying is :dabs:

[OlegL]

I just looked it up on wikipedia. Sweden is definitely not a direct democracy. It has a parliament which has less than 400 members that represent the people of Sweden.

[Squeamous]

Idiot. You can have a parliament and still have a direct democracy.

[OlegL]

It says here http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/riksdag_eng.htm that "The Swedish democratic system is based upon representative democracy. Elected representatives make the decisions for the population on governmental action and laws."

[chalice]

It says here http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/riksdag_eng.htm (http://www.algonet.se/%7Ehogman/riksdag_eng.htm) that "The Swedish democratic system is based upon representative democracy. Elected representatives make the decisions for the population on governmental action and laws."

What's your point, mong?

[OlegL]

Chavis, well... It's a good question. I am not even sure what my point is.

[Artemis]

It says here http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/riksdag_eng.htm (http://www.algonet.se/%7Ehogman/riksdag_eng.htm) that "The Swedish democratic system is based upon representative democracy. Elected representatives make the decisions for the population on governmental action and laws."

What's your point, mong?

There is no point, he is just in the argumentative stage of the withdrawal from his psych drugs. :wacko:

[mjmacky]

I am not even sure what my point is.

Well now you have your point.


All democratic governments have representation, therefore a parliamentary system. The way the branches of governments interact and set policy determine the type of democratic system in place. Referendums, issues that voters vote on directly, is a form of direct democracy. Having representatives, elected by voters, vote on issues is indirect democracy. All democratic governments are hybridized with both indirect and direct forms, their classification resting on their primary method of policy setting.

[Artemis]

Well now you have your point.

All democratic governments have representation, therefore a parliamentary system. The way the branches of governments interact and set policy determine the type of democratic system in place. Referendums, issues that voters vote on directly, is a form of direct democracy. Having representatives, elected by voters, vote on issues is indirect democracy. All democratic governments are hybridized with both indirect and direct forms, their classification resting on their primary method of policy setting.

Sadly, patiently and lucidly explaining concepts to Oleg is a bit like teaching a carp to ride a bicycle - he'll never really use the newly found skills anyway, and the great blank will come and he will forget all you have taught him. He will then repeat his original hypothesis as if nothing had happened, because in truth nothing has happened for him. He very much reminds me of the lead character in the movie Memento except without any real will to change his circumstances.
I think you will gain more enjoyment from your day revisiting the galvanic response of frogs, than explaining anything different to his beliefs to OlegL.

[mjmacky]

I think you will gain more enjoyment from your day revisiting the galvanic response of frogs, than explaining anything different to his beliefs to OlegL.

I should have put a horizontal line, and in fact I'll go back and edit it. I wasn't really directing it towards Oleg, it was more of a matter for clarity's sake, and also to expose my understanding of it just in case I don't have it all factually correct. The bonus would be, to refer Oleg to the same post over and over again in case he wants to continue on his current path.

[OlegL]

All democratic governments are hybridized with both indirect and direct forms, their classification resting on their primary method of policy setting.

So, what elements of direct democracy can you find in the United States? I think that the only thing we are able to do directly is to vote for our representatives in the Congress. We can't choose a president directly because the Electoral College system is in place.

[mjmacky]

So, what elements of direct democracy can you find in the United States? I think that the only thing we are able to do directly is to vote for our representatives in the Congress. We can't choose a president directly because the Electoral College system is in place.

See post 30

[OlegL]

Okay.

[temisturk]

I think the problem the US (and all other large countries) face re. the "fairness" of their system of government is directly and unavoidably a matter of numbers. With >300,000,000 citizens it's impossible to have 1 President whom millions if not tens of millions of people will not utterly loathe and despise. Even with a Senate of 100 people they're each supposed to "represent" 3 million people, and obviously there will be a very wide range of interests within such a large group. And similarly with Congress but there you also start to have a problem the other way--for as many as just 435 people to agree on anything starts to be difficult.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think just introducing a few more parties, or switching to a parliamentary system would help much. And I don't even think a genuinely direct democracy (still not possible but becoming increasingly so with the spread of the Internet) would be an ideal solution--you would still have tens if not hundreds of millions of people disgruntled at having "lost" any particular vote on any particular measure. And such a democracy could actually be quite harshly dictatorial in reality. Minority rights would be far from assured in a system of strict majority rule.

[mjmacky]

Even with a Senate of 100 people they're each supposed to "represent" 3 million people, and obviously there will be a very wide range of interests within such a large group.

The senate doesn't work that way. 2 U.S. senators from California represent (without quotes) over 37 million, while 2 U.S. senators from Wyoming represent just over 560 thousand. The House of Reps typically represent between 600k and 800k citizens. Each house has their own purpose in a bicameral system, and citizen representation falls on the HoR.


I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think just introducing a few more parties, or switching to a parliamentary system would help much.

The real problem I'm working towards is the 2-party system. With the range of views and priorities, that should be shifting (and not constant), I'd prefer to see an easier possibility for new parties to come to power in more significant representation. Wouldn't work so well for the Senate I imagine, but would work for the HoR. The parliamentary system in other countries allows them to introduce seats into the legislature, and parties rise and fall to meet the demands of the public.

As skewed, contradictory and diverse as the Tea Party is, I would have preferred to see Tea Party representatives take office as part of an official Tea Party rather than get lumped in with the Republicans. A 2-point spectrum is way too limited, but fits a Presidential Democracy, hence the proposed idea of a Parliamentary Democracy. It's still just a matter fit for discussion, reorganizing a government like that would require more of a chaotic catalyst.

Also, how cool it would have been to see the Rent Is Too Damn High party have a fighting chance in any election.

[temisturk]

I know I wasn't exact about things but I was trying to make a general point (which I still think is valid).

But anyway, I didn't say allowing more parties wouldn't help at all, I just don't think it would make as big a difference as I think you think.

[Squeamous]

More parties won't help. You'll still end up with the major two, with the rest acting as protest votes.

[mjmacky]

I dunno, I think the people are pretty finished with these two dirty whores. I've got one that never lets you kiss her under any circumstance, and the other who is always begging you to hit her. The routines get old after awhile, need a variety.

You guys haven't really dissuaded me from the appeal of a multiparty system, not even slightly. It's sort of like if I said, "I'd rather be swimming in a public pool than this fecal sewage", and then you tell me, "no you don't want to swim in a public pool, people piss in them".

[temisturk]

An apt if somewhat disturbing analogy. Swimming is piss is better than swimming in shit, but it's still far from being a satisfying experience.

[Squeamous]

I dunno, I think the people are pretty finished with these two dirty whores. I've got one that never lets you kiss her under any circumstance, and the other who is always begging you to hit her. The routines get old after awhile, need a variety.

You guys haven't really dissuaded me from the appeal of a multiparty system, not even slightly. It's sort of like if I said, "I'd rather be swimming in a public pool than this fecal sewage", and then you tell me, "no you don't want to swim in a public pool, people piss in them".

Which brings me back to my original point. Direct democracy: the rest is just semantics.

[mjmacky]

Which brings me back to my original point. Direct democracy: the rest is just semantics.

I realize the catch 22 I'm in, I wouldn't trust the states' general public opinion on anything. Their opinions are easily bought out by propaganda, maybe I see a U.S. direct democracy as swimming in Coca Cola (I'd still rather swim in piss pools). I'm actually trying to discover what my political stance is now that I've given up hope on anarchy. I think I'm aiming to empower the marginalized intellectual class of non corporate citizens.

[Squeamous]

Which brings me back to my original point. Direct democracy: the rest is just semantics.

I realize the catch 22 I'm in, I wouldn't trust the states' general public opinion on anything. Their opinions are easily bought out by propaganda, maybe I see a U.S. direct democracy as swimming in Coca Cola (I'd still rather swim in piss pools). I'm actually trying to discover what my political stance is now that I've given up hope on anarchy. I think I'm aiming to empower the marginalized intellectual class of non corporate citizens.

I hear 18th century France is lovely at this time of year.

[mjmacky]

It's never a lovely time of year in France.

[Squeamous]

It's never a lovely time of year in France.

:happy: