quote:

---

I don't like the fact that our president is not directly elected.

---

quote:

---

I don't like the fact that instead of worring about the nations people, our politicians worry about party politics.

---

quote:

---

The fact is, I didn't want Bush simply because I didn't agree with him, so I take part in the mudslinging about his intelligets etc.

---

Q.E.D, eh?
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
Hmm, I jsut wrote a reponse to this a few hours ago, and it dissapeared, I wonder what happened.

Anyway, what I said was basically, I didn't want Bush, because I am a democrat, so I obviously took part in the stupidity remarks aimed towards him. I do know that he has some leadership qualities, and he deserves more credit, I also thinkt eh republicans could have done better, but a democrat of less intelligents I would be happy with. I wanted Gore, because he was a Democrat, but I thought he was a terribvle candidate. But as long as he was saving Alaska, I didn't care, I think that is where the problem lies.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
I do like to think of myself as a Democrat because I am a liberal. Though now I am finding that, as has been said, there aren't any good candidates. I don't like Bush for my own reasons. I'm not really enthusiastic about any of the other candidates.

Which brings me back to my central question. What do we do now. Many people have said, not on this thread, but elsewhere in Hatrack, that the American Government is lacking in different things. I was wondering if there were ideas out there that we could put together to create a new kind of government with. I'm not talking about revolution. I'm just saying, "Where do we go from here?" what is the next step in our societal evolution of ideas.

I have my own beliefs, but they are just that, my own. I might be sounding selfish here, but I want us to come together and share our ideas on what we think should happen now to make us come closer to perfection. To better society. Do we need a Hegemony, a Locke? Or do we have what we need? Any ideas?
 

---

Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
 
Meritocracy. It is the closest(functioning) state to a utopian state. Either that, or a benign dictatorship.

--Locke
 

---

Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
 
I think the us government has plenty of strong points all governments will have weaknesses but i want to make a list, then maybe we'll see some suggestions.

good points
A the president has control of the military, this is good because if congress led us in war we'de never get anywhere. Noone would agree on tactics and would undermine anyone else whenever they could.

B congressional branch of gov't creates the laws we live by, our congressmen hafto do what the massess tell them, if they want to get re-elected. so the people do have some power which is important.

C judicial system, this part is a good model of the other 2 the judge implements the sentance but the jury -again the people- choose guilty or innocent.

Major problems:
A competition between power-hungry and often corrupt politicians. How many people in the gov't are on other payrolls? i have no idea but there are some, there are always some.

B I had wanted to say the 2 party division but there's only 2 parties because no one takes the other parties seriously. like the environmentalist and independant parties, independant isn't really a party but they dont belong to any other group and we hafto put them somewhere.

C the fact that the president is elected by a college bugs me too, i'm glad gore lost, he sounded like a child the way he squabbled at the debates. But the fact that a man could get elected while more people voted for the other guy bugs me.

I dont have any suggestions on how to better the system, a dictator would piss too many people off, other than scrap the Electoral College and actually let the people decide directly is all i can suggest.

What do you think?

~Brock

~I'm telling you, You hafto DIE. It would make us all real happy if you did.
-sure. No biggie.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, man. You're all making me feel very, very old and cynical.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Tom, you are old and cynical. We like you that way. <Blissfully ignores the fact that he is older than Tom.>
 

---

Posted by Will (Member # 5243) on :
 
For some reason this is the first time I've actually come to the Hatrack River site, though I've been a fan of Orson Scott Card's books since I read Ender's Game in 8th grade (I'm 25 now, for reference)

I wouldn't have imagined the first thread I would respond to would be one on contemporary American politics, but what the heck.

First off, I want to say that I don't think we're nearly as bad off as most people seem to think. I honestly don't think we need to revamp our government, what needs revamping is our voters.

Let me explain. Voters, while pathetically few choose to exercise it, hold all the cards in this country. We decide by majority who gets elected. Until the voter turnout statistics begin to approach a reasonable level, we have no right to complain that our politicians do not represent us as we would like.

And since it's a closely related subject, in our predominantly capitalistic economy, we also hold complete power over which companies become the richest and most powerful. The only reason we sometimes seem not to have this power is a result of blithely choosing whoever has driven their name deepest into our subconscious minds for decades before anyone seems to notice what the company is doing with our money.

Really, these two are both the same issue, and in my opinion are the two ways in which Americans are allowing the country to slowly crumble around us. People need to realize that voting, both at the ballot box and with your dollars at the mall, are not just a right but also a responsibility to the ideals this country was founded on.

Once people start taking this responsibility seriously, we'll be in a much better position to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the system itself. Doing so first is like returning your computer as broken because you never bothered to learn to use it.

Will Thomas
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
Of course our system of government is wonderful, it is one of the best in the world. (I say one of the best because I don't know the details of newer democracy, though I don't like the idea of a house of Lords in England.) What we want to do is improve, there were repucussions that our founding fathers just couldn't imagine.

1. The whole election system is off. Having representatives makes the people with power represent our ideas, but it works too well, we loose integrity when re-election is the sole priority. (conisdering its the law by which you vote by) The money aspect of an election is ludicrous, it costs a fortine to run, and we can't waste tax dollars on the poorer candidates. Then theres the porpaganda campaigns, the ignorance and lack of judgement in voters, and the massive amount of non-voters. (I live in Ma, and our last election, I 2was hoping for the Green party candidate to win, and I am a democrat, and tens of thousands of people agreed with me) I think our election process needs complete change.

The second thing is taxes. This is the basis for our economy, and almost every problem arises from it. Fundamentally, most democrats think it is necissary to function the country, and it should be spent of the various porgrams it was initially meant for.
From what I see, republicans think that taxes are a degree of stealing that was agreed to in the Constitution, but stealing isn't "good" so we should limit it. Plus, even if we get a republican leader, we get corrupt ricvh people who don't care where the moneys going to come from, they jsut want to keep theirs. (Recently in Ma there was a huge tax cut plan, and to make up for the loss, they put forht the idea of putting tolls on school busses. The people who want this are consequently the ones funding the campaigns) We need a set amount, that can only be changed in emergancies. We need to solve the problem before it gets bigger. As Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Edit: These are "in the mean time" ideas. We are destined (in the least religous weay possible) to unite. We just can't stay in peices, its coutnerproductive and agaisnt human nature. We can even see the beginnings of how, (If in this age) it will happen. The middle east conflict will be solved one way or another, China will start to leave its socialism government, and begin to becoem a super power greater than the U.S. And finnaly, the U.S. is way too powerful, and all the other countries know it. They've let slip their control, and we've grown, we can do something that the entire world dissagrees with, we can't be punished. Unless we push it waaaay too far, we can do anything we want within our own capabilities. It is a problem, as aanti-american as it soounds (I do love America) no country deserves that much power. With the combination of another cold war that could turn out differently with China, a new beginning in the Middle East and our country's bully tendencies, a polotician would have to simply say that becoming part of a world government, not United States enlarged, but have the United states a faction, putting restraints on our power, thye could sway many countries. POersuadfing the people would be as simple as, adding to the american dream, lubricating the machine. I know how flawed my little theary is, it's just what I think will happen, feel free to tear it apart, these types of things change every week in my head.

[ June 06, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Moozh ]
 

---

Posted by Will (Member # 5243) on :
 
Moozh, regarding your first point it ignores the main point of my previous argument. It is useless to discuss election reform when voter turnout is at the incredibly low level. When people argue about whether Gore or Bush really got the most votes, I have to laugh. The person who got the most votes was Noone. People who didn't bother to vote outnumber supporters of all candidates combined. Changing the election procecures won't change that.

As for taxation, I agree generally with your comments. My main objection is to your oversimplification of the Republican and Democrat positions on the subject. Everyone but anarchists will agree taxes of some kind are nessicary, if only to pay the president's salary. At the risk of getting onto a side tangent, there could definately be a lot of improvement in effective use of taxes; NASA has sent several probes to Mars now, and if my memory is serving me correctly each mission cost less than one fighter plane. Ignoring the much more complicated debate about the nessicity of war, I find it impossible to believe that it has to be as expensive as it is. There seems to be something hypocricical in saying "We believe in this issue so strongly, we will kill a lot of people to promote out side. But we don't believe in it strongly enough to allow our own troops to be in danger while they do all this killing, especially if an extra trillion dollars can reduce the risk from .3% to .2%"

Ahem. I seem to have gotten onto that tangent anyway. So I'll move on to your final comments and predictions about the position of America in the world now and in the future.

First, your predicted series of events certainly sounds plausible to me. That America will not hold it's position of disproportionate power will not last forever is as close to fact as anything in the future can be, and only ignorance of or willful disregard to history could allow anyone to think otherwise. That China appears set to take over the position when the time comes seems likely as well, though less certain; being on the verge of many technologies capable of reshaping the entire world make for a lot of unknown variables; for all we can really know, 150 years from now Mexico could be a superpower. It might seem like a funny idea to some people, but concider that American researchers pushing into hypothetical new territory of knowledge that is restricted by our government of the future might find the government of Mexico quite happy to have them.

Of course, that's just as much speculation, so I'm not really criticising your predictions, just trying to further illustrate the uncertainty you conceded yourself.
 

---

Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
 
I agree that our current system has its problems, most especially how we elect our president. But first in defense of the two party systems it is essentially for there to be two parties so that one group doesn't seize control, but I think that if there is more than two parties there would be too much discord to ever pass any laws. I heard alot of people complain, during the 2000 election that they were didn't really like either Bush or Gore and we've all heard of Clinton's proposal to end the term limits as long as the terms aren't consecutive.

I've always been partial to the British 'vote of confidence' idea. I think that once a president is elected he/she should keep the office until a member of Congress called for a vote of confidence (with in the congress) and that if the President loses there are six weeks until the next president must be elected and in office. This would cut down on the campaign price and time. As for the candidates themselves; the Congress should nominate six candidates from anyone who wants the job, at least on from each of the two main parties. Then the public votes in a majority wins election to see who wins. I think that having more choice will increase the quality of candidates, cause fewer close calls and inspire more people to vote because they are more likely to find a candidate who fits their opinions.

As for future world powers I vote for Brazil. It has a large portion of the world's population and a considerable amount of land. It is also a relativiely new democracy and like America a 100 years ago it is largely farming, logging, and fishing today, but given time it will grow in sophistication to take power just as America begins to fall. Who knows they may even help to push America over the edge when we begin to become too greedy and they react in the best interest of the world.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
I like all of your comments on the future of America. I thought now was a good time to interject some of my own ideas. I believe that economics is the foundation of every society. This must effect government. So my general belief is that the strongest nation, economically speaking, in a world wide view, will hold the super power status.

Just to digress, I never meant to say that I believed that the government needed to be changed, but like was said, improved. There is a natural evolutionary change in all human things and I wanted to know if, since we are the future, we had any ideas on what this evolutionary change might be

As for voting, taxes and the like: yes we need reform, but it goes deeper than that. Our government, the way it governs, changes little by little continuously. With new laws and acts of legislation, the scope of our government broadens and decreases. This will lead to a more perfect form of governing, in theory. Yes, I believe we have the most perfect, large-scale, practiced form of government there is.

We must discover ways to decrease the self-preservation in government and increase the "people politics" that will lead to the better society of the future. I want to add in some discussions that had come up in the Our Locke and our Locke forum threads. My new question is this(if anyone has an answer): what is the future of American and on a larger scal, world politics. What changes could be made to solve the current problems of world and more local governing? This is a big question and I know that we can't REALLY answer it, but we can have ideas and beliefs that can be used to create a better form of government. This is all theory, so we can't really be wrong so I encourage all posts. I fany of you have read Plato's Republic then I am looking for something like that. To, in essence, create our own form of government. Im a little crazy, but I think we can do it.
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
First, I'd like to congradulate all participants on their general lack of party biases. Of course we will all be biased, but this is turning out to not be a mudslinging thread that ruined some other great ideas on this forum.

I was trying to be broad, there are millions of opinions, and I tried to sum them up in 2 sentances.

Parties are necissary, it provides growth, but their descisions shouldn't be so pivotal. We should once and for alll solve the major issues, create a permanant tax plan, that like other laws, can only be repealed by the Supreme Court. We should be scrimmaging over the small things, it just doesn't work on a huge scale. You can look at the Civil War, not that I think one is in our future, ever since the Constitution, 2 ideals survived, and they led to war. The south beleived the Constituion was a contract, and when the north didn't uphold their part, they had a right to break away, the north though it was the creating of a new entity out of newly freed contigants. They ignored the problem and it led to war.

It is disturbing to think about America's inevitable fall, but we can try to make something better out of it, we can learn from history. Just because human nature tells us to do one thing, doesnt mena we can't modify our methods with new information.

I think the major problem with America is we are all just too lazy. We live in a relativly easy world, we have fancy toys, and drinkable water. We can make forums etc. That was, dare I say, a plus in China's socialism, you needed to be SMART to succeed, and look whos on top of the technology front. In the beginning, we needed to be smart to survive, now we can survive, so evolution switches around priorities and we need to be attractive to mate, some things aren't problems. it's strange because these are our goals, but they are obviously counter productive. We are getting gradually dumber, and in current polotics there is nothing we can do about it. We have absolutly no chance of being part of a multipolar wolrd as a super power at the rate we are going. I know I am saying we need to change a problem instead of changing a government, but maybe changing things so that they are easier to fix these problems will help.

The fact is, we want to be forced to be better, but we don't want anyone forcing us, so conterversy arises, we need to fix that.
 

---

Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
 
Very nice thread.

I will restrict myself from the dozens of sideline comments I would like to make and say this. I think that a "meritocracy" is an impossibility and is in direct conflict with the open-market ("new frontiers") philosophy that seems to be driving the current administration.
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 
I'll make a quick comment on the electoral college. It's an idea that looks wacky at face value but it does guard against some problems (which is why I suspect the founders put it that way). One, let's say that everyone in New York and California vote for Bush, and that in every other state, the race is much closer but that Gore wins every other state. who should win the election? Bush will win the popular vote by virtue of Cali and NY's populations but does that represent the nation? This set-up would also encourage more voter fraud (bribes, dead people, etc.) to pad your lead.
Two, the way it worked in 2000, there was only a recount in Florida because it is the electoral votes that count. Imagine the chaos of a national recount because every individual vote matters.
those are some quick points think about. For a more lengthy discussion, see
Electoral College

[ June 07, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Rohan ]
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
I see your point, but it is equally unfair for a candidate to get more votes and still loose. If Gore got less votes, he shouldn't be president (In your scenario), the presidents job is to please and govern the people, not the states the people are in. How do you expect to make people vote if thousands upon thousands of votes get lost in the shuffle.
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 

quote:

---

I see your point, but it is equally unfair for a candidate to get more votes and still loose

---

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.

---

quote:

---

While we're at it, I'd like a pony.

---

Tom, you usually strike me as a very serious person, but sometimes you say the most hilarious things. . .

I love satiritic-styled writing(I don't know how grammatically correct that is ).
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
Admitted, I am ignorant on the subject, but I see a problem..... If it's not aq problem, tell me why.

For the lawsuits, you renaimed the problem, but you didn't address it.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

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.

[ July 15, 2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Gottmorder ]
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
just watch me accidently kill this thread.

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?
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
"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?
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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.

"Its all economics. Thats where its at."

-Adei

[ July 26, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Adeimantus ]
 

---

Posted by enagonios (Member # 5481) on :
 
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.

isn't it?
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
So... Let me get this straight, You wish to solve a stupid problem implicating a theory based on a dumb idea?
I'll go for that

NO.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by enagonios (Member # 5481) on :
 
i was kidding, sun. i just thought it was a funny idea when i thought it up oh so early in the morning.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
What about this recall vote in California. Is this the right solution. Or is it even a solution? I think not. Too much democracy!
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
1) Good to see you Jettboy.

2) The Yoda qoute was way cool!

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!!!



[ August 09, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
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.

[ August 09, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
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?)

[ August 09, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Adeimantus ]
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
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?)
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 

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!
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
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"
 

---

Posted by Morgaine (Member # 4691) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
A Hegemony, as I have said before, doesn't have to mean someone who rules the entire earth.

quote:

---

---

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"
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
We need to reform our political parties. Why does Congress get nothing done? Why are there so many stalls and lags in the political and law processes? Because we have bickering and nit-picking between our two dominant political parties. This is creating an epidemic of low political interest and even lower voter turnout. When poltical headlines are filled with the long drawn out fights back and forth between these two political parties is so disconcerting to me, a member of the electorate, that I can't distinguish the party's platform from what they are saying about the other party's "ignorance."
 

---

Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
 
The party probems are definatly a problem. No government can work fast enough or efficiently enough with all of this side stuff going on. I can't so far think of a fair solution.

National Health care. We have the money for it, or had, or would have if we didn't spend 19 trillion on the War effort, and proabably will have again when the economy smooths out. The problem is that our government isn't built to have such a system and it would take massive amounts of work, but as long as we're creating a new one, why npot put in a clause for health care. Given, it is collapsing in england, but that is because England is loosing money, it doesn't have many resources, and their coasting right now on past succeses, it's starting to show. As long as were not at war, we can definantly afford the system.
 

---

Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
 
I agree. Universal Healthcare would be a definite help in the social problems this country is having. While were talking about Healthcare, Malpractice, at least in Pennsylvania has really become a problem. The premiums for Malpractice insurance keep rising because the number of malpractice cases won in favor of the plaintiff has sky-rocketed and because the payouts involved in those cases are just absurd. Let's put that on the list as well. Maybe making a cap on payouts....
 

---