USA Politics

What's your affiliation for USA politics?

  • Democrat

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pat Buchanan

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

generalnmx

Playful/Fascist Mod
Joined
Apr 18, 2003
Messages
2,128
Age
42
Location
Maryland, USA
Website
www.matts-hosting.com
This could also be used as a replacement political thread, feel free to discuss other politics too (but USA is the most fun to defend and bitch about, admit it).

To start off - I've recently had a discussion with some of my peers about "direct democracy". To those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a system of government orginated in the time of Ancient Greece, and adopted by the Romans thereafter. While times back then were different, at its core, the system only differs from indirect democracy (USA's current system) by one factor - in direct democracy, the average person is allowed to directly vote on any issue normally given to the executive branches.

My question is, would enough USA citizens be informed, and incorruptable, to handle this type of power? Personally, I think direct democracy is a far more ideal situation then indirect, but perhaps the world isn't ready for it.
 
True, but that was a different era. Anyway, the voting was mostly done by only a certain percentage of the population. Has the USA become so bad that we have not become enlightened enough in these 300-odd years?
 
Thanks generalnmx, for making this and starting it off with a topic so that it doesn't get spammed. Also, good post to start it off on to find out what people are people are on this thread.

As for the electoral college. It seems like a lot better idea when you see how divided each state is. Its not like there are just a few large regions:

map_lg.gif


THIS is a great website that really tells a lot about the college and, in my opinion, the map disproves anyone who says that Gore was the true winner.
 
whatever facts you throw at it, the one fact still remains- More people voted for Gore than Bush.
And that can happen in the UK too, because of our ridiculous electoral system.

As for Direct Democracy, I'm not sure what i think. I mean i believe that the population is educated enough to be able to make up their minds about facts, and also think that current representative democracy is unsatisfactory.

However, mass use of referenda might increase voter weariness and apathy. Also, people may just vote for their own short term gain. Direct democracy was used recently in Bristol in the UK. It was widely recognised that local schools needed more funding, and a referendum was put to voters- would you like
a) no tax rise
(B) 0.5% rise
c) 1% rise
d) 2 % rise. (i think those were the figures, but you get the point)

Need , i tell you which they chose? (a by the way :) )

They voted for short term gain instead of investing in the future of the country and education.

I feel that the curreny representative systems seen in the Uk and USA etc are wholly unsatisfactory, but am not convinced that an entirely direct democracy would work. Therefore, i think something more in between should be reached, where people really have a say on important issues.
The current electoral systems rob citizens of any real power and there is therefore little democracy.
 
I think that there should be direct democracy as far as the election of leaders goes. There are two things that annoy me about the system; first of all, every vote should be counted as ONE VOTE, regardless of the region it came from, EVEN IF most people in that region voted differently. This will give smaller parties a MUCH fairer chance, I believe. (the number of ppl sitting in parliament would then be worked out based on the overall country-wide percentage that each party received).

Secondly, I think it's ridiculous that there are always only 2 choices for president; the candidates put forward by each of the 2 parties; and that the candidate that wins is directly related to the party that wins.

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, is an independent...

P.S. It's kind of interesting that most people on this board seem to support the Greens (so far, anyway).
 
Direct democracy was used recently in Bristol in the UK. It was widely recognised that local schools needed more funding, and a referendum was put to voters- would you like
a ) no tax rise
b ) 0.5% rise
c ) 1% rise
d ) 2 % rise. (i think those were the figures, but you get the point)

Do you have an exact citing? Because that poses an excellent point. A lot of stuff in the executive branches first goes through a mesh of laywers before reaching the general public, so the result is a jumble of legalize which might not be entirely understood by your average voter. We can't expect people will follow politics even in a direct democracy - some people are just lazy, especially in the USA. Saying something is "widely recognized" only means, at the very best, that it is widely recognized within the circles that the media and advocates (of both sides) follow.

Speaking of indecipherable mumbo jumbo, who voted for Pat Buchanen? :D
 
Democracy? in a country with only two parties?(no on else can afford a viable campaign) you're kidding yourselves.And whats this business of only two terms.So even if you find a really great pres with his finger on the pulse who actually isn't in the pocket of big business or prepared to sell his country to china as long as it leaves him plenty of time to screw interns you can only hold on to them for a maximum of eight years.
Then you have to hand the whole thing over to some other manequin whose administration will take most of the first term finding friendly interns or arrangeing tax cuts for their contributors! MADNESS
And if they feel things might be a bit tight at election time they can just get their bro to screw up the count in his state!!
not to mention that every state works out the votes cast in various different bizzare ways.
As the saying goes only in america.
 
So even if you find a really great pres with his finger on the pulse who actually isn't in the pocket of big business or prepared to sell his country to china as long as it leaves him plenty of time to screw interns you can only hold on to them for a maximum of eight years.
Well said.
 
Term limitations are what keeps out political leaders in check. We need more term limitations for congress because they're the ones who truly run our country yet they sit on their asses for decades as long as they keep getting re-elected, but do nothing they promised to do during their terms. Atleast most presidents carry out their intentions during their terms.

Do we need our presidents in office for more than a decade? I say no, because it gives them too much time to control the government without opposing views.

Atleast having a 2-party system gives us some variety to political leaders. I guess it would be boring to have either a Republican or Democrat in office the whole time.

2 more points of information here (well, one is information and one is really more of advice):
1) Third parties in America have historically been around merely to influence the 2 major political parties. History also shows that no third party member has ever been elected president, no matter how close they've come.

2) To those under 18 years of age heed this: It's good to develop some political points of view, but you're young and easily programmed. It should not be a point in your life to think about politics until you're probably atleast old enough to vote. But even in college it's tough to not have people's opinions forced upon you.
 
Term limitations are what keeps out political leaders in check. We need more term limitations for congress because they're the ones who truly run our country yet they sit on their asses for decades as long as they keep getting re-elected, but do nothing they promised to do during their terms. Atleast most presidents carry out their intentions during their terms.

Excellent idea. Personally, I think they should have the chance for re-election, but only after a 2-year break. That way you get to see how a different candidate fares.
 
By well said, I meant the China and intern thing. Term limitation is definitely smart. You want to know something else that I find really interesting? Clinton has never actually said that he opposes the war and many believe that, if given tim, he may have done it himself.
 
I dont understand why a really good and well loved president(if such a thing could be found) couldn't run again when the other option may be to hand the country to a bunch of total losers.
 
Franklin D. Roosevelt was president for 4 terms.

Consequentially, FDR is also the President that some, including me, say started the trend of corrupted Presidents. JFK got the ball rolling on a few crucial things, like NASA and seriously nailing organized crime but the Kennedys were pompous and corrupt, and Ted Kennedy carries on the tradition as far as I'm concerned.

Anyways, congratulations to Kerry.

Oooo, I just thought of something cool to add to my sig.
 
Back
Top