posted
Look, I realize I'm geting no where with you guys, but if you'll go to this link Electoral College I promise he'll explain it better than I can. The main problem is that it's hard to understand that the electoral votes of a state are all or nothing, but the popular votes are not, so you can't compare them one to one.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The electoral college guarantees that a president's support must come from many states. One region cannot elect a president against the will of other regions of the country.
Many decades ago, when the Solid South racked up ridiculous one-party totals -- elections with eighty and ninety percent of the vote for the Democratic candidate in some states -- the most that their candidate could receive was the total of each of those states' electoral votes.
Sure, that could be thought of as "thwarting the will of the people." But it also kept the South's attitudes on race in those bad old days from having even more influence on national elections than they already had.
this is an excerpt
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
while we're considering communism and other such things, why dont we consider a society that doesn't use money at all. We all just go to work like we always do and go to the store like we always do without the passage of that green paper which makes people so happy.
think if people were willing to give up greed that it would work? I mean it doesn't have anything to do with government other than there would be no taxes, it would just exist. but i figured if we're discussing econmics it should be considered.
~Brock ~He who lives by the Sword gets shot by us Archers
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The American goverment is the closest to being the most perfect of all goverments. I'm really suprised that nobody has mentioned this little problem... 2 party system. The two party system may have been great 50 or 75 years ago, but think about the population increase since then. Most of your parents are baby boomers. Our population increased many times from them. As more people are born into a nation opinions and ideals also multiply. Don't you often look at candidates and think "Heck, I really don't care to vote dem or rep"? We need a more choices to choose from. With the world as it is, and the fact that you're truly Jewish, Islamic, Protestant, or Catholic (and many other) brothers and sisters are a lot closer now than they were a decade ago shouldn't America have a greater census when it comes to elections than the two money driven parties that we now vote for?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
but if we have a multiple party system wouldn't that just make things more confusing to the people? I'd be like Italy-where all these parties run for office and policy can sometimes be confusing. Even figuring out the different posistions that all the candidates have and deciding which one is closest to your own opinion will be very time-consuming. America seems to be a very "instant" society. We all want do get things done as quickly as we can to move on to the next thing. Even waiting for a dial-up connection seems to be too much for Americans. Are we really ready to spend the time needed to figure out the positions of a multiple party system?
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can never make communism look good, we have all been taught to hate it. The masses will instantly reject. if you change its name and work it out differently, powerful intellectuals will still see the communist roots, and sway the masses, it would be impossible to get any votes like that.
There is no limit on parties (I think), do you wonmder why there is just 4? It's because we need to give in a little to avoid giving in a lot. All the new parties would be some form of democrat or rpublican, like the Green part is more democrat. The democrats will look at it, and say, basically, we want the smae thing, we jsut choose different core issues, we are dividing the electoral votes. Why don't we combine and double our votes? Then those two parties will win, so the other partes will combine, start with 10 parties, and we will be back to 2 major ones in no time.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not the fact that communism will never look 'good'. Communism is inherently flawed. The Marxist and Leninist roots that have been appplied to communism are flawed. Marx saw a society that had repressed human nature and thought that humans were greedy and selfish becuase of the state of the world. The real truth is that human nature has always been triggered toward self-interest and the state of the world has no affect in this social behavior. Communism would eliminate the core of human nature and I can tell you I am not prepared to do that. This is not because I am incredibly self-centered, b ut because communism would eliminate the competitive nature of society and being genius or gifted would amount to nothing because you would always share the same amount with everyone else. Its like social welfare inside the social structure. Also Lenin could not acheive the 'perfect state' because the bureaucrats could not create a good economy or a good social structure. Communsim is flawed, and when we try to change these flaws its not communism anymore.
The two-party system is necessary. There is a list of reasons why our nation's two-party system provides balance. Even if we tried to create a multi-party system, we would eventually fal back to two parties and they would probably be similar to the two parties we have now.
I won't get into that 'no money' comment, I think I get what your saying: you want to get rid of a need for greed. But getting rid of money would make it pretty hard to trade. Also ruin foriegn economies not just our own.
posted
I concede on every point on the electoral college except for the fact that every once in a while a candidate with less votes wins. It's never by a large margin, so it can't possibly be a part of some mainstream power distributer, if it is a flaw in the system, it should be fixed, if it is inherant, the system should be abolished. It happens far too rarely to be a mjaor [part of the Electoral College doesn't it?
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't concede that quickly if I were you. Just to counter the points made in the essay: Localized Crises :The fact that we have crises is a problem. In a direct election there would be no need for a national recount. The only reason we needed a recount was because the Electoral College is dependent on the popular election.If that case we saw in Florida were similar but in a direct election format it wouldn't have mattered because Gore was already over bush by a larger margin. So, the idea of a nat'l recount is laughable, and even a recount on a small scale like we saw in Florida would very rarely be needed because it would be based solely on the popular vote. Minimized Fraud Yes, but candidates already campaign to get more votes where they are strong and don't try very hard at all where they are bound to lose. Fraud? It is insanely hard to cast fraudulent votes right now because of Florida and how close the race was. The tactics the author cites are old fraud tactics used long ago when voting was corrupt and party sponsored. Protecting Minority Voters In reading this passage I was drawn back to the earlier statement where the author said that those who oppose the Electoral College are only teary eyed Democrats who were upset about the outcome. In this passage that author bashes Democrats for targeting the Black population. The author also indicates the extreme possibility that the African-American population would be targeted because they could sway the vote, but then the author goes on to say that minorities now can sway the vote. Um...anyone see some conflicting statements? (The only problem with the second part is that inner city African-Americans have a very low voter turnout)The African-American population was targeted by White Supremacy groups even during the current election format. I believe the only idea the was clearly heard in this item was how much the author detested of the acts of the Democratic Party by exaggerating the act and the meaning of the act. A Ceiling on Regional Peculiarities Ok here the author speculates about, since the South is strongly Republican, that many would blame that on the Southern States...and your point is? The benefit of the direct election, the REAL benfit, is that all of those Democratic voters in the South, and etc and vice versa all over the nation, ALL the votes from EVERY state would be counted. Right now, one candidate has a majority in that state, and boom, that candidate gets that state's votes. But, in the direct election format, all votes from that state would matter, not just the majority votes. The Useful Illusion of a Mandate. Ok, does the author understand that, since less than 50% of the population votes, that no candidate will really ever get a majority? All popular election voting goes to the candidate with MORE votes. A candidate will ALWAYS, well 97% always, get the majority in the Electoral College. Only once or maybe twice if my education is off did the vote go to the House when there was a tie. And during that election the Democratic Candidate had a substantial majority of Popular votes. That candidate conceded and the Republican candidate won. The alternative solutions the author gives us are mundane at best and provide no good alternative, leading us to believe that the Electoral College is the only good alternative. My overall point is that the author, accusing those who oppose the electoral college of being biased, is himself biased. There aren't any strong arguements against the use of the Popular Election and there are no strong arguements for the Electoral College. Sorry, but I am not swayed.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, how's this sound, I hate arguing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, mimicking arguments of, say, their parents. Well, I obviously don't know what I am talking about, I really know no details of the Electoral College, and I don't have the time, or the real interest to learn it. So, I'll withhold my vote period on the issue, and leave it to people who know what they're doing. (And of course, I just became a hypocrite, not voting because you don't understand something, and not taking the iniative to understand it. Well, I guess my actions have their plusses, and I really am not in the mood to think about any paradoxes, so oh well)
We can move on, or not. I think one of the main issues is the amount of power we should give to our leader.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I like the checks and balances system as far as power and how much a person holds goes. I think its necessary to be able to have 3 equal standing bodies government to "check" the other.
I think what we need now is a way to get the people who want to get involved in politics a venue in which to have a voice inside the politics. I want to mix in some direct democracy type venue that would have the voice of the people from the people, not from the mouths of the politicians. Like, "This is what the public REALLY wants..." Then have some kind of body like that in te smallest to the largest forms of government we have, so that its easier to hear the needs of the public, or their constituency.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I read the Communist Manifesto and almost coughed up a lung laughing. Impossible, unless every single person in a country is an Ender Wiggin.
Anyway, I think that every government has some degree of decadence and inherent flaws. However, I think that the US government, thus far, has as close as we've come to a perfect government.
When I first learned about governmental systems, I tried to formulate a utopianized government; but people smarter than me haven't, so I dont' suppose that I could.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going to make some quick comments about the electoral college as person who once cried for it to be removed but now simply would like it to be reformed.
First off the electoral college was oringinally put in place to prevent the "stupid" or "ignorant" country and "uneducated" from making decesions to harm the conutry. But still serves a strong purpose in making sure every state has a "role" in the election. I.E. I live in Duluth Minnesota a state with 10 electoral votes. But President Bush and Senator Lieberman both made campaign stops in my city during the last presidental race. Why? Because the 10 electoral votes are very important whereas much of the focus on Minnesota would have been diverted away to larger states like Texas and Californa. They still got plenty of attention but since were both "safe" states a good deal of the attention was moved to smaller but "swing" states like Minnesota, Florida, Wisconsion, and many others.
Now if the college wasn't in place it would have made more sense for Bush to increase his time in those larger states because then he could more easily reach larger numbers of voters rather than spreading out more evenly.
Of course the other side is that every vote should be exactly equal (and it is close) for president is good one and certainly worth considering. But think of this if it was a nationwide popular vote then every state in the union would have had to had major recounts and think of the headache and court battle then. It was bad enough with one state in question.
My idea for reform is that rather than whole states going for a candidate we should give votes out based on congressional district. Meaning Minnesota would still have 10 votes but my congress district would have one to itself rather than the whole state going to one candidate. Then whoever wins the statewide total would get the Votes given for Senators. So in Minnesota each of the 8 districts have 1 meaning Bush would get 5 and Gore 3 in Minnesota and then Gore gets the 2 more for winning the state. So instead of Gore winning all 10 each would have gotten 5 from my state. (Many states that Bush won close that would have favored Gore in the same manner it would have favored Minnesota for Bush.)
Now with this we still save the overall headaches and confusion of a nationwide vote recount but move more local control of the electoral system brining it closer to being a popular vote than before.
(This would be a state law change in each state and there are 2 states both with 4 votes if I remember correctly that already do votes in this manner.)
[ June 23, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: bone ]
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I agree completely with bone, it might constitute a little more work, but it seems like a much better system. Granted, there still could be a situation where the candidate with more votes looses, but the probability of that is greatly reduced, and it does not completely solve the inherit problem with the electoral college, some votes are still lost, but it is much better. It depends on the contex, if we are creating a new government we might want to find a new system, but if we are improving on our own, bone's idea is the best I've seen so far.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I dont get about bones theory is what if there is an unequal amount of electoral votes to Congressional Districts? And we must remember that Congressional Districts are not set in stone and are changed by the majority party. Think about how much controversy there would be if a party got to select which areas would constitute a Congressional District, meaning they would get to select the best areas for voting for their candidates. Thats a little messed up. And why would there ever have to be a recount? After reforms in the technology and efficiency of voting, which should be in place after the next election, we wouldn't have the sames problems we had in Florida. The fact is, Americans votes for the President now, so we can't really believe Americans to be too ignorant for electing the President. We are forced to think "state"ly when we talk about elections right now because thats how the election system works right now. After such an election reform, we would have to think of us voted as America and not as states. That is a barrier that really shrinks us down to inhabitants of a state and not inhabitants of the US.
IN our current system, if you vote in a state for a candidate, and your candidate does not get the majority, your ballot then loses all relevence. You have now become powerless in deciding who is to rule our country, if your not in the majority. Does that sound right. In 2000, Americans voted for a President and he was not elected. In the Popular election system your vote will count to the utmost value possible. And we would have a direct impact on who sould run our country.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The districts have already been decided, the districts that have representatives. This still looses votes, but less.
Ok, I'll start up other areas.
Supreme court justices having a lifetime job, it just leads to problems. If things go as expected we will soon have 8 republican and 1 democratic Justice, for a long time, just because the republicans have insofar been lucky enough to have power at the times when justices have been chosen. It will inevitably switch, but then the republicans will be in the minority, it just doesn't make sense. It is the backbonje of checks and balances, but it is based almost entirely on the luck of the draw.
McDonalds recently lost a class action law suit regarding people who burned themselves on cofee, and sued because the cofee was too hot. Now this is ridiculous in 2 senses. 1 is the obvious, millions for burning yourself is ludicrous. And sense, it gives millions to idiots. I'm not talking specifically about the coffee, but it isn't the shows fault that people imitate them and get hurt, so they loose money, but the people blatently stupid enough to imitate a show named Jackass, get rich and prosper. Tell me that this isn't counter-evolutionary.....
I don't know what the solution is, but I think these are definantly problems.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
please,please read up on some info on the reasons why our SC justices have life long terms before you create opinions about it. If you would just take an American Government class you would realize that our current process in SC justices tenure is as near perfect as we can get.
Also, I dont believe that to be counter-evolutionary. Its called greed and capitalism. I'm not an anti-capitlaist, but thats just a drawback in the system. I know I would want millions of dollars if I could get it and I wouldn't mind burning myself to get it. I actually burned my foot on coffee...long story, but it was pretty bad and I was going to sue the car company for faulty cup-holders but decided it was too much work and would cost alot, especially if I didnt win.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
alright. The Justices are not into party politics. No Justice has ever backed a Presidential candidate or the like. They are different in there ways of interpreting the laws, but we hve to understand that that will always be the case. I could go on and tell you all the reasons why our Justices are there for life and why they are chosen by the President and ok'd by congress. Some quick reasons: they dont have to answer to the people because they are not elected, if they were elected they ould have to worry about campaigns thus taking away from their job.
Also, what would be the better way? If the President we elect chooses a justice, so be it. We elected that President and it is his right(I use the term "his" out of past occurences). You just have to understand that the Justices don't vote based on "party lines." Justices cant and arent seen as "REpublican" or "Democratic". That kind of viewpoint just detracts from what they're really there to do. They aren't there to appeal to the President or the Republicans or the Democrats. They just interpret the laws.
The law suit thingy...oh well man. This is one of those "So what?" things. unless you have some sort of vendetta or personal realtionship in this thing that I don't know about then, OK. But this is just excess baggage as far as I'm concerned. How do you want me to "address" the problem? Is there really a problem? Counter-evolutionary? How?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the Electoral College. I think it balances out the unequal population distribution in the U.S. This is especially important for me, as a resident of Vermont. Vermont is the second least populous state in the union, and therefore in a popular election, Vermont would have exactly no effect. Even if everyone in Vermont voted, and voted the same way, it would only come out to be about 600,000 votes.
But just because Vermont represents a fraction of the U.S. does not mean that Vermont should get no power in determining who becomes president. A big part of the Northeast's agrarian economy rests on Vermont. Similarly, the food supply of the entire country rests upon low-population states. Since feeding the country, is, in my opinion the very highest priority, some amount of inequal power should be granted to those states that provide food for the rest.
In a situation where a presidential candidate is hostile towards progressive legislation that creates sustainable markets--like the Northeast Dairy Compact, now KIA due to Bush's free market deregulationist stance--I am comforted to know that there is some power in the agrarian states.
My stance on taxes is simple and unfair. Simple because there are no bloody tax brackets. Unfair because the rich pay a lot more, and the poor don't pay anything. Instead of the totally-wacky tax brackets, your tax form comes with a formula that produces the amount you need to pay. If the number is positive, you pay the amount and that's that. If the number is negiative, then you don't pay anything (and probably want to apply for governmental assistance).
My stance on government is simple. I'm a monarchist. Don't laugh. I'm serious. Like a supreme court justice, a royal family is beholden to nobody, and can--in theory--make impartial descisions. If there were a loosly hereditary line that assumed an avisory role to the Executive branch, I think that the government would be a much greater entity for it.
There are other reasons, too. A royal line is a unifying force in a country. The British follow their royal family devoutly, just look at the turnouts for the Jubilee and the reaction from the Queen Mother's death. Those were not trivial affairs.
A country that looses its royal family is almost assuredly to have strif afterward. Germany, France, Russia, Austria, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, they all lost their royalty and suffered dearly for it. A country separated from its regency looses the thing it was devoted to, and strife is always sure to follow.
The coffee lawsuit makes me sick. If I met the person who filed that suit, I'd be tempted to beat them with a length of PVC pipe and tell them to sue the piping company. Why do such lawsuits make it through? Because there is this belief that everything has to be overwhelmingly safe. Playgrounds aren't made of metal anymore, they're made of plastic. Cars come with more airbags than a hot air baloon festival. American citizens spend millions of dollars every year to get their basements checked for Radon gas.
Radon gas!? Let's be clear. Radon gas, while dangerous in large quantities, is essentially harmless. Radon is a radioactive gas that has a half life of 22 minutes; in a little over an hour any quantity of Radon will be reduced to 12.5 percent of the original quantity. In two in a half, it's effectively gone. Radon gas only seeps into the basements of houses built on granite rock, yet few houses are built on granite because granite isn't typically found in flat places where new neighborhoods are built. Radon gas accumulates in basments and becomes dangerous because they are sealed too well--nobody ever thought of opening a window?
And so, people get millions of dollars because they spill coffee on themselves, or because they're overweight (that lawsuit may have been struck down, but it'll be back, I know it). What horrifies me about such frivolous lawsuits--other than the amount of money in "damages" that is acquired--is that the people filing them don't even consider their own responsibility in such actions. They never have the thought, maybe I should know better. I guess it's all the ADHD, they can't stay on task...
I'd better go to bed. I'm going to turn myself into a cynical old cretin.
***** Terribly Off-Topic ***** I actually wrote this first, because I thought I might forget in the flurry of ranting that would follow.
quote: The author also indicates the extreme possibility that the African-American population would be targeted because they could sway the vote, but then the author goes on to say that minorities now can sway the vote.
I don't know what the article was talking about, but this dug up some memories about a book I read fairly recently.
By closely looking at the political actions just before the Florida elections, there was a definite obstruction of the right to vote for--I think--about a thousand Florida residents. Why? Because they might have been convicted of a crime. Not were convicted, might have been. The governer of Florida, Jeb Bush, had a database company search out all the convicted criminals and put them on a list of people who cannot vote (Florida law retracts the right to vote if you have been convicted of a felony). The problem was, his administration specifically gave instructions to also eliminate those with the same birthday as a convicted criminal, a similar name, or other ambiguously incriminating data. This infringed on the rights of about a thousand--predominantly African-Americans--from voting. Had even a fraction of those people voted, Gore would have won by a respectable margin.
There were many, many factors that were not taken into account in the last presidential. I sincerely belive that Bush did not win the presidency, he was given it by his brother's supreme court. It's disurbing, and the worst part of it is that so few people know.
Do not take this as Democratic bellyaching. I'm not a Democrat. If I could have voted in the last election, I would have voted for Nader. I live in Vermont, where two of our three representitives are Indipendants (and we love 'em all the more for it).
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Becoming overly safe is a good thing in my opinion. It costs money, but it saves a few lives, I have no idea about the economical repercussions of all these extra transactions, but it seems to me like it would have a positive affect.
It's important because innocent people are loosing millions, because of a right to sue intended for logical lawsuits. There are all these clauses that let these suits pass, when they were intended to help in different situations. I guess it's not counter-evolutionary, it's just wrong....
Supreme Court justices are SUPPOSED to be completely impartial, but that's really impossible. Do you think the president chooses them for their moral integrity and their intellect entirely? Do you think a republican president would nominate a democrat, who unbiased as he was supposed to be, would still have strong feelings one way or another. For instance, the sodomy cases, for many democrats, it was a straightforward a case as it could be. We have the right of pursuit of happiness, and if the government infringes on that right without the action harming anyone, it overrides the initial reason for government. Yet it was a huge issue. The fact is, justices aren't superhuman, and some probably will have or had no intention of being unbiased. My solution would be an 8 year term. 1 president chooses 5 justices for 8 years, then the next president chooses 4, that way it alternates back and forth, giving a more fair result.
Why wouldn't it be that the rich pay more taxes than the poor? The whole system would make no sense any other way. The fact that middle class families have to pay taxes, while thousands of rich people get off without paying taxes at all.
The whole point of democracy is to get leaders that reflect the will of the people, so that the people prosper. With a government based on lineage, you only get that goal achieved some of the time, that's why it is inheritably flawed, and things inevitably happen like the massacres of the French Revolution. Though it has its advantages it can't survive, it goes in the face of human nature.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't like about all the handwringing about safety is that there are much more worthy things to worry about than the occasional broken bone or scar. I find it difficult to justify spending millions of dollars to find out if violence in video games has an effect on children, and whether or not such things should be restricted. Or grounding the space shuttle for an indeterminant period of time (NASA hopes for a new mission next year, others in the government want to kill the shuttle entirely) because of two unrelated accidents over nearly a 30-year period and over 150 shuttle missions.
There are better problems to throw our hard-earned dollars at.
quote: Why wouldn't it be that the rich pay more taxes than the poor? The whole system would make no sense any other way. The fact that middle class families have to pay taxes, while thousands of rich people get off without paying taxes at all.
I don't think I emphasized it enough in my post. In my ideal world, the rich pay a lot more than everyone else. It's not fair to have higher taxes, but there is no way I can imagine spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I think it would actually be work to do so.
As for my stance on Monarchy, I pointed to past events to show that there is value in a royal family, and dire repurcussions if a royalty is removed from power.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that all governments should be communist. No not like the Russians or in China. I mean to use it in the way that it should be used. The sharing of all the resources of any country for all the people to use. Not just the ones that can afford it but everyone. Sure that could hurt a country aconomically but I don't think it would have that great an effect. I know anyone could tweak it enough so that it would wokr and not trun inot a dictatroship. I hope I have not offended anyone.
Big problem with communism, no motivation for the advancement of society. Everyone is given the same things, ie a janitor is given as much as a scientist. It leads to stagnantation, no new ideas, which results in less jobs. Communism looks good on paper, but it just doesn't work in real life.
Communism fails because people will continue to want stuff.
edit: Although, if Hunt for Red October has any validity, communism has one redeeming quality, its soundtrack.
Electoral college: Yes. Why: It gives power to the majority of the people and to the majority of the States, anything else would tip the balance of power. And yes, the term is "State's rights" and there's a very good reason for this- "minority right". We need the balance of power or the people of less populous regions will never be fairly represented.
Monarchy: No. Because it's to easy fo one bad leader to screw things up.
Communism: Limited. 90%Free health care, luxury tax, no taxes for the poor, etc. Why: Because, quite frankly, it's the right thing to do, and contrary to the popular belief, it can be done in a democratic society.
Taxes: No income tax for people below about 30,000$ a year, then a flat income tax. Large scale luxury tax. Legalize and tax the holy heck out of harmful substances and detrimental products. No land tax (taxing land is like saying you can't own land unless you're rich.) No sales tax (unfair to the poor consumer). No Other legitimate tax comes to mind just now.
Representation: Like the American founding Fathers intended: Local autonomy. Split the 50 States up into communities of about 50,000, and let it be Our 5000 States. Sounds inefficient, I know, but look at our government now. Is a little diversity really to high a price to pay for good government and freedom?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets just get this straight: Communism is inheritaly(SP?) flawed. Unless you would change the composition of the Communist system, then maybe it would have a chance of working. Just read all the posts on why not and you'll get the idea.
The MONARCHY: It was mentioned that the monarchy would be useful in our government as an advisory branch? The monarchy is an aristocratical tyranny. To put power into the ands of a family just because of a bloodline is pretty rediculous.
We are reaching here the main fight between where our nations political parties came from. Should we invest more power in the States or in the central government? There have been debates for the last 200 years on this subject dating back to the first political parties. I don't have answer, but if I had to chose it would be centralized power.
I still hold that we, the electorate, could have alot more power in choosing who would govern this country if we had a popular election. I have not heard any groundbreaking evidence to push me any other way.
The Founding Fathers actually wanted many different things for our country. Some of them, I have learned, would have ruined the economic and social systems of the US if put into effect. The Founding Fathers were not in agreement as a whole about what to do with America. I can assure you though that they would not want 5000 independent states. Do you actually understand the reprecussions in the way things are run? The problems of representation, the handling of sate run agencies and the problems of ratification of an amendment come to mind right now.
Diversity is not what our government needs. Unity is what our government needs. If we had more than just half of Americans voting there would be no need for our debate on the effectiveness of the Electoral College. In the popular election ALL the votes count. Why don't yu people see this. As I have said before, ONLY the MAJORITY votes count in any state. If you aren't in the majority, your vote is THROWN AWAY. Now every ballot cast has value in deciding who we want as our president.
IF we are to decide who we want to represent our views, then shouldn't the person with the most votes be that person?
I was referring to the link to an essay on the Electoral College. I have posted up above about my feelings on he essay.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of the electoral college is that the interests of a rural state are protected. The majority of the people in those rural states determine which candidate is best for their state. States, not people, elect the president.
It's my impression that the electoral college system works amazingly well, and I don't understand the derision it gets.
I'd also like to point out that the electoral college is a more American way to do it than a popular election because we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Defense of a Constitutional Monarchy or The Positive Points of A Royal Line
I hope to sway those who are vehemently opposed to the concept of Monarchy, and even those who simply belive that Monarchy is an antique and useless form of government, that Monarchy is, indeed, a valid way of ruling the people in a peaceful and stable way.
I want to point out the holes in the arguments you use to deride Monarchy, since they are based primarily on misconceptions and bias.
quote: The whole point of democracy is to get leaders that reflect the will of the people, so that the people prosper. With a government based on lineage, you only get that goal achieved some of the time, that's why it is inheritably flawed, and things inevitably happen like the massacres of the French Revolution. Though it has its advantages it can't survive, it goes in the face of human nature.
In a Monarchy, a monarch persues the best interests of the country, which, in turn, are the best interests of the people which she governs. This is not always true, but nor is it always true in the case of a Democracy.
In a Democracy, the elected leaders are nearly never elected from the majority of the populous, and rarely have the people's interests at heart. No, the elected is beholden to both those who brought him into power and those who supplied the capital to fund an election. Very few elected figures break the 50% approval rating, whereas a monarch--both contemporary and historical--consistently are approved-of by the populace.
A Monarchy does not go in the face of human nature, as you say. I only have to point to history for proof. Monarchies have been around a lot longer than Democracies, which is both a testament to their compatibility with human nature and a testament to their stability. A Monarchy is less likely to break down from internal strife, while a Democracy is often crippled or collapses.
Very few African nations are able to maintain a consistent, stable Democracy. Why? Because the country lacks the physical and social infrastructure to support one. A Monarchy needs no such infrastructure because a monarch may maintain order by commanding the loyalty of the people, for without loyalty a monarch is hardly a monarch at all.
quote: Monarchy: No. Because it's to easy fo one bad leader to screw things up.
quote: The MONARCHY: It was mentioned that the monarchy would be useful in our government as an advisory branch? The monarchy is an aristocratical tyranny. To put power into the ands of a family just because of a bloodline is pretty rediculous.
It is true that a single poorly-raised noble can have a deleterious effect on a country during his reign, however, is this not also true of the elected officials in a Democracy? Can not a president do as much damage as a monarch?
Despite what you may think, a monarch does not wield unlimited power. Constitutional Monarchies have been in place since at least 1214, and possibly earlier. A Monarchy can hardly be described as such if it lacks a constitution that outlines the powers and rights of both the monarch and the people. A Monarchy without a constitution is not a Monarchy, it is a Facisim.
While a hereditary line of monarchs is not the optimal solution for finding great leaders of people, I think that it far surpasses, or at least equals, a Democratic system. An elected leader need not show any ability to lead or any aptitude at statesmanship. An elected leader may not even need to be particularly intelligent. What he must be is a good salesman. Often times, Democratically elected leaders turn out to be charlatans!
While a Democracy is doomed to become ruled by either the political left or right, a Monarchy has no such leanings. An impartial leader is able to make judgements and pass action based on the full spectrum of the people in his domain, while an elected leader need only appease his constituency--which nearly never the majority--for reelection.
In a Democracy, where a leader is elected to a term of office, there can be no long-spanning projects. The president of the United States is given only eight years to do what he can, while a monarch is given an indefinite rule. A monarch could begin long-spanning and forward-looking projects that could never be accomplished in a Democracy. Why would an elected leader--who is likely only to ever see a handful of years in office--want to propose an expensive, two-decade project, even if it does improve the welfare of all.
As an example, take the American space program. The space program was Kennedy's top priority, not just to beat the USSR, but to take "a giant leap for mankind" and his dream lived for only a few years after his death. Now the manned space program in America is all but dead. If Kennedy were a monarch--and none better suited for the task--his dream would be passed on to his heir, who, luck providing, would still be alive today.
I don't expect any of you to become Monarchists, but I simply want to plant the idea in your head that maybe Monarchy isn't all that bad. It's not a Tyranny, as American anti-regal histories will declare. It's not against human nature, since modern Monarchy has been around for nearly 800 years, at least. It's just representitive as a Democracy, since few people in a Democracy vote anyway, and those who do aren't representitive of the people's will any more than a monarch is. A monarch can do great things that an elected leader cannot. Basically, to sum it up,
Monarchy can do everything a Democracy can do, and can do it equally well.Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can not a president do as much damage as a monarch?" In a word: NO. Thus the phrase 'system of checks and balances.' You two both seem to be missing what I see as a key point. A government is hardly ever just a democracy, just an monarchy, or just communist. For example, Wheat coined the term "constitutional monarchy". That is not the same as a pure monarchy. It has a large amount of democracy mixed in. As perhaps implied above, and contrary to the popular belief, the American government was based on the Brittish government! They just happened to draw the line and call it democracy- a government by the people for the people and of the people. I, for one, WheatPuppet, do not frown on Monarchy- constitutional or otherwise. It certainly had its place in history, and may indeed now have a place in the more primitive societies. I just happen to think that a representative(Probably) democracy(note that this is not pure democracy either) is better at encouraging change, better at stopping change for the worse, and helping change for the better. To stagnate is to die.
Adeimantus: Did I say I was a communist? I don't believe so. What meant to say is that we should in fact throw some 'fraternity' in with our 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. Would you leave a fellow human being to die or rot on your door step from starvation or curable ailment? Why should our government?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A constitutional monarchy is simply a monarchy that has a constitution that creates checks and balanaces that limit the power of the monarch. It need not have any input from the people whatsoever.
I do agree with you, though, there is rarely such a thing as a 'pure' government type. For example, the United States, and many other democracies throughout the world would be better classified as socialist democratic republics.
What I was trying to show is that the knee-jerk reaction to a monarchy is--for the most part--unfounded.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHEAT:A monarchy you say? Your leading arguments it seems for a monarchy are:
1. that since the electorate in America does not participate in a substantial degree, that having no voting right at all is preferential to an insubstantial voter turnout. um...what? Democratc leaders are elected by their constitutents, enough said. The difference then is that dmocratic leaders MUT do certain good things for their constitutents or there are repercussions. A royal family would not have to follow the peoples best interests at all...andif they did, who woul decide what is in the peoples best interests? The parties in America today are pivotal for the vitalty of our democratic state ad for ensuring that certain beliefs and ideals have a place in politics.
2. Longterm projects. Th president is not the only decison and prject implementing sector of our government. All theimportant deciions ar made in our Congress which changes minimally over a span of 10 to 12 years. Therefore long term projects are possible.
3. A constitutional Monarchy. Of course. But with all of the American freedoms today, the monarch woul belittle different than the Presien other than the term office and the way of obtaining office. It would be impractical to believe that Americans would give more powers to another person other than the president when most of the time we complain about the presidents job performance.
Of course now I am doing what you didnt want me to do. Im assuing this frm of governemtn replacing our current form. I dont believe tha any prominent nation in the world would currently remotey consider the idea of a monarchy cnstitutional or otherwise. The idea in contemporary society is preposterous. All the things that make our government great would be bent or broken in order to conform to the monarchic system. Thres no way about it. Our system is unrivaled in its idealistic and politically stable structure.
To believe tat because of someodies bloodline, that they have some kind of political significance is preposterous. The idea that our system could be in any way comparable in its greatess to a monarchy in any for is preposterous. I a cmpletely an uterly against any kind of monarchic form of government. There is no fundamental way that a monarchic could gain the will ofthe people to rule. We each have different views on the way the country should be run. (As seen in this thread...) and to pass on that right to rule this country to a FAMILY and a BLOODLINE is actually comedic. Thanks wheat. And I mean monarch in any form anywhere, our system is preferential. Social structures in countries where there are political struggles and civil wars, have nothing to do with it because they have external fators that could crumble any political system. A royal family would just put red targets on certain people.
So my main point, our system, not democracy or a republic, or socialism, communism, monarchy or any current politcal system has proven to be better in contemporary society. OUR SYSTEM, which has no classificaton other than the fact that it is our system, is the best we have right now. Of course their are always imprvements that can be placed as the times change. But not as drastic as are being shared currently. Thats my tirade. (I did not touch on all the points covered in you posts though, and i will clarify my counters on them later, I think this is good enough for now)
SUN: Didnt call you a communist, was only countering the point you made. Of course we could use that but we dont need communism to acheive that. Advances in our health care policies, maybe universal healthcare, or the like, might be able to do the job.
posted
how about this solution to the voter turnout problem, which seems to be the root cause of most of the debate here: instead of an electoral college based solely upon population, develop an electoral college based upon percentage of a population which votes. (a state with 50% voter participation gets twice as many electoral votes as a state with 25% voter participation) ie, the states that had people that cared about the government would get the most electoral votes. this, of course, would lead to a disastrous event: a national leader who had been elected by a regionalized section of the population. the experiment would have to be limited to the presidency, so that congress would still have the power to limit such a regionally minded executive. basically, it would lead to 4 years of strife: constant struggle between the congress (when they weren't too busy dealing with their own regional issues) and the executive. but you can bet that when the next voting cycle came around, a lot more people would be at the polls. and if they weren't, then they obviously would be accepting the rule of the country by one region, and if they would wish to accept that, would it not be just as much their right as wanting their own region to lead the country? after all, that choice of voting or not is just as central to the premise of freedom as voting one way or another.
posted
Adeimantus, I think the fundamental- theoretical- law of this country, that is the constitution, is an excellent one. It therefore disgusts me that that law is not upheld, and that supposedly lesser laws and policies which clash directly or indirectly with the constitution are upheld
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you SUN. I don't like this Patriot Act for one, and I hate it that we have become increasingly tolerant of these abominable acts and laws.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i was kidding, sun. i just thought it was a funny idea when i thought it up oh so early in the morning. Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about this recall vote in California. Is this the right solution. Or is it even a solution? I think not. Too much democracy!
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
3) I hope that the advent of online voting would make every US citizen more aware of the laws that are voted upon.
I imagine a democracy where every politician is faced with his or her represented public being able to cast an online vote for any law that is being voted upon, with the ability to comment as well. Sure this idea is crazy and impractical, but what could be better than true representation? Basically, a politician would be faced with the possibility of casting the vote that best represents his/her group, or they can buck the popular vote and explain their actions as deemed necessary by the voters.
The biggest problem with this is how to make sure all voters had the ability to cast a vote in a manner in which the politician would receive it, and secondly, how to explain what exactly the bill is and what its ramifications are.
These two details leave a huge opening for corruption and politics to creap in and take hold. Still, I would rather have everyone vote than just 20% of the population!!!
posted
I love it when people reference their right to privacy. What I want to know is where that comes from? It's not in the Constituition, Bill of Rights, or the Decleration of Independence. The closest thing you'll find is a search and seizure limit and that has nothing to do with phone taps. I want to see one solid peice of evidenct that this "abomidable" Patriot Act will in the slight incovenience you.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, I would reference the 9th Amendment. I am not crazy about the notion of a generalized right to privacy, but the argument is that the rights of the defendant assume such a right to underlie them, and the 9th Amendment basically states that other rights exist that may not be enumerated by the Constitution, but cannot be abridged on the grounds that they're not listed. Or something like that. It's a confession of the author's inability to think of everything ahead of time.
posted
Unfortunetly for you HART, I'm not talking about convenience, I am talking about the fact that now local authorities are working with the national law enforcement agencies. "With this law we have given sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and have eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that these powers were not abused. Most of these checks and balances were put into place after previous misuse of surveillance powers by these agencies, including the revelation in 1974 that the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies had spied on over 10,000 U.S. citizens, including Martin Luther King."
Info obtained from Electronic Frontier Foundation.
This new law upens up the blocks that prevented many intrusions by law enforcers into practically every person in this country. I'm sorry but if it takes that to catch less than 200 terrorists in this country, then I'm moving.
(Well not really, but shouldn't that say something about the ineffectiveness of our law enforcers?)
posted
The question I'm really asking is, how have you been hurt by this act. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are not doing anything you wouldn't want the government to know about? Therefore you have nothing to hide and shouldn't resent the fact that they are monitoring what you say. You will never know, until you commit a crime. As for the cooperation, I'm glad. Local law enforcement and international intelligence, ideally should be one, in order that criminals may more quickly be apprehended.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adeimantus> Actually the number, less than 200, is the problem. Intel and law enforcement are sifting through a haystack looking for needles. That's why they need a magnet.
I agree that having checks on the power of law enforcement agencies is important. The catch is that those checks also make it difficult for those agencies to do their jobs. For my own part, I'd rather run afoul of the police, the FBI, or even the CIA than fanatics who will blow me up as soon as look at me.
Ryan> In theory, you're absolutely right. In practice, there are still some things that are not for public consumption. They're not illegal, you're not ashamed to do them, but you'd still rather they didn't become public information. (Remember those celebrity videotape scandals?)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The question I'm really asking is, how have you been hurt by this act. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are not doing anything you wouldn't want the government to know about? Therefore you have nothing to hide and shouldn't resent the fact that they are monitoring what you say. You will never know, until you commit a crime.
All well and good, assuming that the government is on an approximate moral par with GOD!
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the government did decide to extremely limit our privacy, it wouldn't be too terrible. If there was something you needed to do that the government wouldn't really agree with, and you needed to do it badly enough, you would find a way to do it. I mean, think about it - most people's lives aren't nearly as interesting as Bean and Ender and Petra and everyone else's life in the Ender books are. We aren't necessarily being hunted down by students who've graduated from schools in space over whom lunacy has come. Most of us also aren't so militarily inclined as to be kidnapped by foreign countries who in turn hand us over to this crazed lunatic of a boy who kills every person who has ever helped him or seen him in a state of helplessness. Most of us aren't in need of keeping a secret identity to hide from the government. However, I think that we could all have a much easier time if Bush was out of office and sent away to some desert isle in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I was watching this news article that said if you were in Ohio and, theoretically speaking, if you went directly through the center of the earth, you would not, in fact, be in China, but in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Anyhow, I think that even Clinton had better prinicples than Bush. If he was smart, our troops would be back in the U.S., Saddam Hussein's elite would slowly trickle back into place (over years, I'm sure). When this happened, and without publicizing U.S. motives all over the news (what's the point in airing this information on television when your enemy could see it) Bush could send some people over to "greet" Saddam and simply drop a bomb over whereever we think he might be while in a small plane - and while I'm sure my idea would need a large sum of tweaking and could hardly qualify as military material, it's a lot better than what Bush is doing. Does anyone watch the news? He's on a re-election campaign!! Oh, it gets better, he even has time off from his strenuous, back-breaking work on his campaign to play golf! Golf, of all things he should be doing now! If he were smart, he'd be trying to make plans to find Hussein and his people and kill them, and bring back our troops. He'd have a much larger chance of getting re-elected if he did that than if he continues to allow himself to be seen all over the news playing golf. The best thing for our government, in my opinion, would be to get Bush out of office.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the biggest problems today with everything is the media. As long as the media, and the bias that has crept into every report, exists, we will never know truly what's happening anywhere. We need to understand our world, in order to vote for changes, or to keep things the way they are. We don't have that.
The media influences everything. It's not as if they simply report, because I can't see that being much of a problem. Each news-agency must put their own spin on things, reveal their own hatred, opinions, and agendas. Any information, then, that we have or know, has an underlying theme, a possibly undetected bias, which is detrimental to society.
Without knowing what's going on, we run the risk of turning all of history into myth. Remember what happened at the Baghdad Museum? First the Americans destroyed the artifacts, then the Iraqis, then the museum curators themselves. Now it's a myth, and it's unlikely we'll ever know what really happened. Some people may know, but they'll never be believed, especially when using the media.
We don't even trust our own sources anymore. How many times do you read an article in one newspaper and feel the urge to check another newspaper for verification? And you can't just check any newspaper, it has to be one known to have an opposite political twist on things. You read something from CNN and check FoxNews, or vice versa. You no longer trust any media by themselves, until you've checked it out by opposing "sides". Some people don't check other papers, they simply rely on one side's reporting abilities. They have no idea that there are more opinions contrary to their own, more myths in the making.
So before you start planning for a "Hegemony" of sorts, you'd have to be prepared to be completely truthful in the news. No one will buy an idea such as this if they know they will not be getting the truth. An idea would be to abolish all ideas of media today, and create simply a channel or two (or more) that simply broadcasts. Only facts. These channels are forbidden to have any political twist, backing or interference from "one sided" sources. Everything is simply to be reported as it happens, there is to be no opinions or extrapolations made.
It seems, that because of the blatant media bias, people do not take world events seriously anymore. Sure, we hear about countries at war, and fighting, but you don't really believe it can happen. It takes a September 11th, a war in Afghanistan and in Iraq to make people want to care, and then the media messes up everyone's "opinions". People don't have original thoughts anymore, pertaining to news items, they simply repeat what they've heard from their favourite political news source.
You want a world power, or at least a fraction of the world unified under one government? Make the people care about their world, let them think up ideas of their own, instead of creating ideas for them to parrot back to you. Allow them the freedom of interpretation, not the media. Then, perhaps, the people may consider backing such an idea. Or at least they have a fair shot at a choice of whether they want it or not. But with the media such a large hinderance, nothing will happen as large-scale as you imagine.
And frankly, I think that's a bloody shame.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Hegemony, as I have said before, doesn't have to mean someone who rules the entire earth.
quote:
1 entry found for hegemon. heg·e·mon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hj-mn) n. One that exercises hegemony.
quote:
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn) n. pl. he·gem·o·nies The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
A hegemon can simply be a person who rules over the United States, making Bush the hegemon. We already have a hegemony, just not a very good one. So if we're going to start a hegemony, there's no use - there already is one. But if what you wish to do is tweak a few of the lose cords (belive me, there are alot) in the hegemony that we currently have, that is possible. How it is possible, I couldn't tell you. Seeing as I have no influence in the government, I might as well curl up and wait until I turn the proper age to have some influence. I'll tell you, some kids have better ideas than adults in our world. It's true.
No matter how developed an education you have on government, most people have common sense. I know this might sound weird, but if we want to start getting people to vote that know what they're doing besides those who just like checking the little boxes on the ballot, some un-biased person needs to develop a test that everyone takes to be able to vote. Now I'm sure that there isn't one un-biased person in the entire world, so this idea will not be easy to pull over. But I think it's a better idea than having to be 18 (it's not as though when you turn 18 you instantly are able to control your actions- alot of kids are more intelligent than adults we have voting, as I said before) and letting every Joe Schmoe who's above 18 and is a U.S. citizen vote.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
this, of course, would lead to a disastrous event: a national leader who had been elected by a regionalized section of the population. the experiment would have to be limited to the presidency, so that congress would still have the power to limit such a regionally minded executive. basically, it would lead to 4 years of strife: constant struggle between the congress (when they weren't too busy dealing with their own regional issues) and the executive. but you can bet that when the next voting cycle came around, a lot more people would be at the polls. and if they weren't, then they obviously would be accepting the rule of the country by one region, and if they would wish to accept that, would it not be just as much their right as wanting their own region to lead the country? after all, that choice of voting or not is just as central to the premise of freedom as voting one way or another.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
