Reply With Quote
"Most other democracies do not run this type of system."
England, as they call it, also does first-post-the-post wins all.
Disclaimer
I first want to say that, WC and boutons, as the two most disgusting partisans in this forum, while i know you will comment on this, I do not feel that your words have any merit whatsoever. In this discussion, I hope people keep this in mind. To the point, try not to allow their stupidity or that of any other blind partisans to derail this topic. Please ignore them.
Intro
With that out of the way, the assumption that I am making is that the American political system is inherently flawed. It has reached the conclusion after 200+ years of what a two party system is. The more specific assumption is that the two party system is the basis for this dysfunction and as such is at the core of what needs to be reformed.
The two party system is endemic within the political process. From the way that the primaries are handled to control the nominations of the president, to the methods by which the leaders of the various legislatures around this country choose the leaders within those bodies, the manner in which committees process legislation, the appointments of our judiciary, and on and on and on. It IS our political system.
This really hit home for me in the last election, I looked over the ballot and saw a bunch of names that for the most part I had no idea who they were. I at least attempt to keep myself aware even on the local level so i know that the rank and file had absolutely no ing clue as to who any of these people were. What I did see is that they were arranged in neat little rows with Republican and Democrat listed next to the names.
I thought back to my childhood and going with my sister during an election. One thing I recall clearly is the lever at the top of each column labeled Republican and Democrat which when pulled voted straight down party lines.
That pissed me off. I just have to think of all across the country how many people were not even thinking and pulling that lever perpetuating the system that I have come to hate. why think when you can have someone else do it for you. As an aside I feel that if you vote for someone and you have no idea who that individual is that you are not only intellectually lazy but more importantly irresponsible.
Schism
Enough with the complaints. Reform means solutions and since the last election, I have thought long and hard on this. It pissed me off so my first inclination was schism. No formalization of ins utions such as majority leader, whip etc. No listings of party affiliations on government do ents and broadcasts such as CSPAN --which on votes lists Repub Dem and other on votes-- and ballots. Absolutely no campaign funding to political parties. I feel that our tax dollars go to the perpetuating the system that s is wrong and those two are the only ones that get anything anyway. Things of that ilk.
If people want to get together on their own and assemble to raise funds and promote candidates then by all means go ahead but on the flip side I think that no American should be forced to assemble and participate in such activities because of government involvement.
First thing this does is removes legitimacy of the two parties. There is already a trend within the newer electorate away from party identification. this is a representation of this ethic. It sends a loud and clear message that this is NOT our system of government. This in turn reduces their power and allows other individuals, parties and organization an impetus to get involved.
I also think that their is a trend away towards celebrity and individual in the political landscape. Just as much as you hear about Repub and Dem you also hear about Obama, Clinton, Gramm, Gingrich, Beohner, Pelosi, Palin, Biden, Gore, Hatch, Paul, and on and on and on.
The individual candidates through ins utional changes have gained more and more power over the last 50 years. This is a continuation of that however in stead of two seas of supposed similar independent ideologies you have a sea of individuals. Individuals will have to promote who they are more than what they are. Voters will not be so easily dumbed down in their decision making process.
There is no formal recognition of the parties within themselves in the Cons ution. OTOH, the 14th Amendment and the broadening of definitions therein would lead to litigation without a doubt.
Proportional
The second idea came from a little political education from a friend of mine. It stems from the winner take all system in American politics. It basically means that if you win an election that district goes completely to the winner. Any other parties contesting get nothing. It is the reason why Perot's Reform Party in 1992 had the support of 20% of the electorate yet zero representation. It is the reason why the current Tea Party which is significantly different ideologically from the GOP is forced to consort with the them.
Most other democracies do not run this type of system. They instead have a proportional system where the political parties are awarded representation proportional to their support within the electorate. The reform party would have gotten 20 members in congress. the tea party would not have been forced to play along with the GOP to get those seats. Unionists, environmentalists and feminists would not have been forced together any more than capitalists, libertarians and the religious right.
Three regional powers use this system of government: Germany, Australia and Brazil. Both have had tremendous economic and social stability for a long time. Germany has been the least effected by the current EU meltdown, Brazil has been the shining star amongst developing countries and Australia has a staggering two decades straight of economic growth.
Our hegemony through in bency is wearing away.
End
This has pretty much been a stream of consciousness regurgitation of these thought processes in my mind. I have been complaining quite a bit about the political system and i think its time for a search for solutions. If anything the last presidential election should have taught us is that reform within the system just does not work. Instead we need to fundamentally change the system itself.
These are just two of my ideas. Hopefully people can fill in the gaps to my knowledge, present alternative solutions and create a dialogue along these lines. Political discussion founded on the principles of the latest partisan think tanks needs to end. This democratic republic based on republicans and democrats needs to end. We for the most part know this. Now we just need a means to that end. In my view this is the most important political question facing us today.
It needs to end.
"Most other democracies do not run this type of system."
England, as they call it, also does first-post-the-post wins all.
Studied the Deutsche Grundgesetz when I was an exchange student in 96-97 and was facsinated by their (far more representative) form of democracy. This is why they are able to have many different parties in far better proportions which more closely represent their cons uencies. In fact, while I was there, I remember seeing that one member of parliment was a part of the "Beer Drinkers Party." How cool is that (no I don't know the history or platform of the BDP)?
Edit: Deutsche Grundgesetz = German Cons ution
How would you compare the US government's 2 party system to the Israeli coalition system: Where a candidate can win the popular vote, but because the coalition of parties ends up being of a different percentage, the de-facto prime minister isn't the elected one?
Also, the countries you mention: Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems.
Australia, for example, has some very anti-free speech tendencies, censorship that rivals China's. There are some other very scary things like young 'gifted' athletes being forced to compete to be Olympians, despite the wishes of the parents...
Germany is having some serious labor issues with regards to their health professionals. They are, relative to the rest of the world, highly under-paid. There is also a culture of elitism that is pervasive, much like here, but much more pronounced.
I am not sure that any of these that you mentioned is due to a flaw in the way in which germany (austrailia, et al) is goverened. Is there something within the Austrainian cons ution forcing parents to allow their kids to compete?
No one is saying that these countries are perfect, only that their flavor of democracy is far more democratic than ours. (disclaimer, I personally can only speak for germany, I don't know the forms of government for the others).
So we don't set up a system like Israels. I am looking for ideas not replicas. The solutions here are many but do not destroy the idea. it certainly does not mitigate that the political process needs to be fundamentally changed.
For example, make the proportion only applicable to legislative elections. Problem solved.
Did the popular vote winner even get a simple majority?
They also for the most part hate aborigines and their toilets flush counter clockwise. I fail to see how a change in the political system would alter the first amendment or the interpretation of it. Our political process has spewed out the same .Also, the countries you mention: Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems.
Australia, for example, has some very anti-free speech tendencies, censorship that rivals China's. There are some other very scary things like young 'gifted' athletes being forced to compete to be Olympians, despite the wishes of the parents...
My point is that their political system has been touted for their economic and social stability.
How are the health worker pay scales in Germany determined. Is it by the state? Quite frankly if the system keeps health care costs down i fail to see how that is a criticism. Their health metrics are quite good. Infant mortality, and they are 8th in the world in per capita doctors so the pay does not deter people from becoming ones.Germany is having some serious labor issues with regards to their health professionals. They are, relative to the rest of the world, highly under-paid. There is also a culture of elitism that is pervasive, much like here, but much more pronounced.
I do not see how that is necessarily a problem.
As for more pronounced elites. Bring that ing on. You said we have elites just the same here. The issue here is they currently only have to operate through two agencies. By virtue of that they are able to obfuscate their influence. If it brings it more out into the open that is nothing but a good thing in my book.
This is good stuff though. Bring it ing on.
I really want to go to Sal Paulo, Munich and Sydney. I have friends in Sydney and i was born in Bavaria so i do not know which to go to first. Was sold on down under but you have me revising that notion.
I guarantee you NORML would sneak in some reps here in the states.
We lived in Berlin, but my host father was from Bavaria. They decided we would take a trip to visit his parents in mid-late september. Oktoberfest was awesome. My host mother and host brother had never been either, but the family decided that if there was ever a time to go, it would be when they could introduce the Ami to it as well (ami - american). Just dont expect that any German you know will pass in Bavaria, it is a different language
Example: [english - german - bavarian]
Friend - Freund - Spetzi (which in the rest of germany is a drink that is half coke and half fanta orange)
I love you - Ich liebe dich - I mog di
and so on....
Sydney DOES look amazing though.
"Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems."
What those countries don't have is a major political party whose fundamental principle is "Govt is the (MAIN) problem" and whose overriding, persistent priority is to cripple/kill/privatize govt so capitalists and corporations can continue to rape the country harder, faster, deeper.
It used to be that the two parties could/would work together. Tip and Reagan did it but now things are so partisan it sucks.
It is not the Blue States of America or the Red States of America..but the United States of America!!!
What's worse than the partisan standoff is that even the Dems are far to right of their traditional base and just a corrupted by UCA and capitalists.
The priority for most Americans is the economy, jobs, housing crisis, NOT the fake debt crisis. The Dems and Barry have done all for their base.
'Left,' 'Right,' 'base.' You are so indoctrinated to the point of absurdity. quit ing up my thread with you bipolar political bull . The entire point of this discussion is to get rid of that paradigm. all you do is spout more of it.
Could not agree more. i just want a representative democracy.
You fed it after you instructed everyone not to. Stop it.
If you see B-D or WC or jack sommerset, et al. just think "Bleep Blorp Bleep" or "Blorp Bleep Blorp" (depending on which party affiliation the person has)
Fair enough. I just need to put him on ignore.
The reason I don't do that is because once in a great GREAT while, they all will say something that is freakin hilarious (as long as YOU don't let politics get in the way).
I don't know that the problem can be solely pinned down in the two party system. For the most part of 200+ years, I thought it worked OK. I think the system works as good as any when you have a good, well-intended political class. But when you get the political generation you have now (easily corruptible, interests over country, inept), I don't necessarily know that a different system is the answer to diminish their influence. They seem to be everywhere these days, including having an (I) after their names.
Fuzzy, I UP YOUR THREAD!
There's no ing way to get rid of your left-right Dem-Repug paradigm. You're blowing self-congratulating, academic smoke up your own ass.
Just like there is no ing way for Human-Americans "to take back their country" from the UCA and capitalists, who own BOTH parties, including the astro-turfing teabaggers, and own any ing fantasy paradigm you think you're agitating for.
GFY and GF your ed up thread.
But that is the point in scrapping the system. The two systems i have espoused both actively encourage participation from independent groups. It amends and diversifies the 'political class.' As it stands now it gives that class a stranglehold on participation.
Additionally I strongly disagree that it has worked OK. The original incarnations were deeply bitter. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. they would beat each other in the parliament with canes. That bitterness eventually escalated into the Civil War and we all know how that turned out.
That basically resulted in the subordination of the Democratic Party so ostensibly we had a single party system up until FDR. Since that time it has developed into what we have today which is much like what we had before the Civil War. Thank God there is no clear geographic bifurcation such as in 1860 because I would fear we would be headed down that path again.
I guess the first amendment doesn't mean much these days.
What do you mean?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's also called the right of free-association.
Oh and there's also the first amendment right to support (monetary or otherwise) those who's political platform you support. But that's more secondary.
That is why this is a discussion. You are free to add your solutions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
