I have always liked the Parliamentary system. I note that’s what we jammed down the Iraqi’s throats.

I especially like having the leader appear before the legislative body to answer questions.

Publicly funded elections would be a good start.

Elections costing what they do assures that the candidate will have plenty of favors to pay back upon being elected.

But Stink... I thought the American system was the BEST in the world?

That's what you conservatives are constantly preachin'?

We don't want no multi-party European Social-democracy... remember?

You GET all of the different viewpoints represented by having rational people having rational debates. It wouldn't be a choice between 2 things you don't like this way.

Before we can accomplish ANY of this though... we need to get the special interest money OUT of politics and return the American system of government back to the way that the founding fathers envisioned it. Read the Federalist Papers and you'll see why they thought a 2 party system was the way to go.

Agree wholeheartedly. Right now there's great incentive to send stupid chain letters around, and to make outlandishly false claims--because they help you raise money. Which you need to get elected. So we are reaping what we sow. Plus any donors have elevated access, which presents further problems.

And perhaps more subtly, but equally important is that in our current election/campaign finance situation -- politicians find it easiest to fund-raise when they are NOT solving problems. It was easier for both sides to solicit donations before health care reforms passed, as opposed to now. The incentive for the pols is to keep issues tied up as long as possible--which clearly is not the incentive structure we want in place.

Alas, while the idea of publicly funded elections is simple, I'd be curious how to tackle it legislatively. What's an "issue ad?". Is a Michael Moore theatrically released movie permitted in election season? Can you pay people to knock on doors?

Well thats about as far as our agreement may go for now

My first inclination about PFE's tells me that there would be more corruption than what we have now, if that's even possible. Several possible hurdles and many possible complications as IR pointed out. I would also be inclined to say that it would shut many people out of the process. Who decides who gets to run and access the public election funds?

I will have to look more into this option before I get back to you on this. Not counting it out though.

No where in the Constitution does it say anything about political parties,.....maybe you can refresh my memory. A constitutional republic can function just fine with multiple parties and has in the past. If you want European socialism than move there. I'm sure you'd fit right in with the French.

You're all over the place here, I can't even follow you. Is it 2 parties that is the "ONLY" way to go or "multi-party social democracy". Make up your melon.

Read my post again Stink. YOU are the one who is all over the place. I spelled it out pretty clearly. You just need to be able to comprehend what you read... that's all.

NOWHERE did I say that the Constitution demands a 2 party system. What I said was that founding fathers and and Federalist Paper authors James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay thought that a 2 party system would be the best way to insure majority rule. They understood all of the inherent problems associated with this idea and agonized over advocating it. In the end though, they decided it would be best and actually discouraged the founding of other political parties.

It's all right there in the history books. Ya just gotta wipe the film of conservatism outta yer eyes to see it.

TanteM,

Très drôle!

Escroc d'Irlandais

Hankster:

I agree with you that we need to have at least two parties on the ballot. I would hate to see either party have absolute power. The good news is the pendulum always shifts. I'm old enough to remember times when both parties appeared to be on the rocks, but they always bounce back. I'm sure the Rs will pick up a lot of seats in the next election and that’s probably a good thing.

It does seem to me that the American people are quicker to become unhappy than in the past. Look at Bush's popularity numbers. Now look at polls that find Obama steadily losing popularity and congress even more so.

We are a people who are not happy with where we were going. We didn’t like where Bush was going, and we don’t like where Obama is headed. I don’t know what it will take to make us happy. It may not be possible. I very much doubt McCain would have fared better. Of course we will never know. I just hope we don’t get so disenchanted we elect some complete whack job.

I fear that as world and domestic problems grow our unhappiness will as well. I believe whoever is in power for the foreseeable future will face an ever more divided electorate. Someone will have to tackle our deficit and the solution is sure to cause pain, maybe enormous pain.

Not very long ago there was talk of the collapse of the Republican Party. That won’t happen, nor will the Democrats go away. But with the enormous scope of problems both domestic and global no one is going to make us feel all warm and fuzzy anytime soon.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. It looks like a lot of us can agree that a two-party system, comprised of bedfellows pretending to represent separate platforms, is running us into the ground. My question is why, once we decide to start questioning a two-party system, we assume that any reasonable alternative would involve additional parties. Screw this party garbage! What we need is leaders that will represent people instead of special interests. Unfortunately, as long as lobbying is allowed to occur, there will never be any integrity in our Legislative process. The winner will always be the one with the deepest pockets, no matter how bad their interest may be for the vast majority of the nation's populus (sp?).

The fallacy of the two-party system bears a striking resemblance (for me, anyway) to the petty disagreements between CCA, WSC, etc. with regard to fish conservation that we see all too often on the fishing boards. In the end we all want the same thing, but we let our different means to the same end become arguing points, and therefore none of us accomplish anything. Those of us who fish need to realize that, regardless of how we think we should get there, we all want the same thing. Beating up each other's efforts to make progress is destructive to everyone's cause, and it needs to stop. Each organization should support the other's efforts. We are stronger as a unified force than as multiple entities fighting amongst ourselves. That principle applies absolutely to politics as well. The only way we, as citizens, are going to get out of this pattern of getting screwed over time and time again is to stand together against the common enemy (our bought and sold legislators and the interests who own them). We need to vote ALL the incumbents out next election, to send a clear message to their successors that more of the same will not be rewarded with re-election. The first Congress that makes positive, effective change for the majority will be the first to be rewarded with a second term if I have my way.

It should be clear at this point that I do not buy into either of our two parties - I hate them both equally, because I realize that they are both motivated by the almighty dollar, and nothing else. That said, I am something of an Obama fan - not because I think he will rescue us from the mess we've gotten into, but because as long as the United States are going to be represented world-wide by a single figurehead, it might as well be one who speaks with intelligence and doesn't make us look like fools (the last guy was a major embarrassment in that regard). Those who fear him and speak out against "his" programs don't seem to offer viable alternatives to what are real problems and need to be addressed, and I think they are making a shining example of how people in this country are too hung up on personal agendas to support any positive change for the majority unless there are no short-term pains. Like most of you, I will personally be negatively impacted by this administration's plans in the short run. Because I don't have any better ideas, however, I am willing to ride this out and see what happens.

Washington has that. It sucks.

It's because some places are so one sided it doesn't offer any choice. Would a conservative stand a chance in Seattle, San Francisco, new york city etc? How about a liberals chances in Wyoming, Fly over states or most of the bible belt? Imagine the look on your face if your ballot said your two choices are Sarah Palin or Dr.Laura? You'd [censored] yourself KK.

Then why would it really matter if a conservative in SF... or a liberal in Texas were on the general ballot at all bd... when like you say, they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning?

Is it just so conservatives in SF and liberals in Texas can feel like they have a choice... when they really don't?

The idea of an open primary is to allow more people to participate... and to find the best 2 candidates, or at least the most popular, no matter their party affiliation.

Scott brown is a classic example of why you don't want open primaries.

+100 Hankster



i only pasted the first post to stir the pot.......Looks like it worked.

[quote=RK43]+100 Hankster

+1000

Same whiny BS we get from Eastern Wa. "why aren't we more represented?" "Why does majority rule?" "it's unfair" "all those entitlements" yet when you do the math Eastern Wa swallows up more of our tax money than it puts in. Western WA supports Eastern Wa.

See Krugman's latest on the GOP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26krugman.html

Well, time to lock up the thread... We've hit the "I only wanted to stir the pot" moment.

It seems to me to be an excellent system that lets the voters choose between the top candidates. If they are both Rs, so be it. If they are both Ds, so be it. Aren’t we supposed to get the candidates supported by the majority of voters?

Hankster, would you have a problem with Orange County having only two Rs at the top of local election tickets? Or is your concern more partisan politics than philosophical?

This is really a question for a game theory person (not me)... We can sit and invent scenarios all day against Top Two (Scott Brown) or in favor (running a democrat against Jacobsen is far more reasonable way to unseat him, than a republican in his district)...

My sense matches with Dave -- that Top 2 (regardless of party affiliation) gets the best person elected.