When it comes to politics in general, I personally think Trey Parker and Matt Stone got it right. We have to remember that in almost any political debate, it comes down to choosing between some douche and some ****. It's kind of picking the lesser of two evils. They can state their views and opinions all they want, but once they get into office, things can change.
I'm very middle of the road on issues, wouldn't say that I'm liberal or conservative, but I do think that anyone stuck on one side may need to broaden the spectrum. I like ideas from both. I think people in this country have become too "stuck" to a single group of ideas. Those same ideas or same groups aren't really bringing any new ideas.
On a side note, I like the story, though I wonder if you will see that "homeless" guy at another spot with more signs. I have a ton of these people in my area. They are full of crap. They're (here you go Kuzi) always out of gas or trying to get a bus ticket to Washington.
If I say "This is a table" I've DEFINED exactly what it is... It's something with 4 or more legs which has a horizontal surface to place things on... It'll never be a turkey dinner, or a good book, or a good cigar... It's a table...
I have a table with 3 legs, therefore you are wrong and your entire argument is invalid.
:-P
rusirius:
IF we got rid of the labels we wouldn't have just "two" choices anymore... We'd have LOTS of choices.... People wouldn't feel like they were "throwing away their vote" by not following one of the two major labels, and at the same time, those who DID throw away their vote by voting for someone they believe in much less would feel much more comforted by placing their vote in the candidate that shared THEIR beliefs...
Imagine, a presidential election that had 15 or 20 candidates running instead of 2... Who would have thunk it???
Seriously though... Why DO people "file in" and align themselves with what the labels define rather than just having their own beliefs?
What you are referring to would look a lot like a parliamentary system. In these systems there are far more parties, each targeted to a specific portion of the electorate. The problem is that in order to govern, they have to form coalitions after the election. In order to form and maintain these coalitions, legislative and executive action still has to be carried out with the goal of appeasing the largest possible section of the electorate. The results are pretty much the same. It's said that the only difference is that in our system the coalitions among the factions are formed before the election (aligning into the 2 parties) while in Europe the coalitions are formed after the election (forming a government). However, their system does give fringe parties at least a voice, if not actual power.
With our Electoral College, and the way our congress is set up, changing to a system that could support more than 2 major parties would require a few constitutional amendments, and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
I have a table with 3 legs, therefore you are wrong and your entire argument is invalid.
:-P
BASTID!
Scrambler:
The problem is that in order to govern, they have to form coalitions after the election. In order to form and maintain these coalitions, legislative and executive action still has to be carried out with the goal of appeasing the largest possible section of the electorate.
At the risk of soundling like a curious child.... Why?!?
Why must the coalitions be formed before OR after the election? To me it seems to only further the darker side of politics...
Why not simply put the issue to vote and allow the count to speak?!? Majority rules right? Isn't that the whole principle of a democracy? (Or at least one without an electoral college to bung it all up)
Forming aliances and "adjusting" votes/opinions/etc as a group in my opinion leads to all the things that are wrong with this country... Send the lobbyist bastards home and just vote how you truely feel... If every official was elected based on their REAL beliefs then those votes truely would reflect the voice of the people... Rather than the companies with the most money...
I guess what I'm saying is... If you do away with the labels on the front side, then you have to do away with the labels on the back side as well... Do that and I'm convinced we'd have a hell of a lot better government...
Putting everything to a direct vote would result in nothing getting done. It's like the Nextel commercial where firefighters run congress. The line is something like "That's a lot of paper to tell us we need clean water. We need clean water guys? Yeah." But nothing is that simple. That clean water comes at a cost. For a government the size of ours to function, we need a body of people to decide the details. In such a system, you need to get a majority of the people to agree before anything can happen. To get that majority to agree, you have to make compromises and concessions. Therefore, you have to build coalitions.
A parliamentary type system would allow for more flexibility among the coalitions, with say Party A siding with Party B to push through tax cuts, but party B working with Party C to force education reform. There are some advantages to a system with numerous parties, but again, it really can't happen under our Constitution.
Right. Direct democracy is one of those ideas that's like a prehensile tail: it seems like it'd be great to have, until you find yourself dangling upside down from it. That is, direct democracy (plebiscite) as a form of government has never worked.
As a general matter, I endorse Scrambler's last couple of comments. Well said.
We tend to sort ourselves into either of 2 categories (red or blue, R or D, l or c) because that's the way we end up having to vote. I have very liberal views on some things, very conservative views on others, and libertarian views on still others, but when it comes time to vote, none of those issues are on the ballot; it's either Person A, or Person B. Neither entirely represents my views, but them's the choices. Since I think the contemporary issues that are most important are the ones I happen to be an l rather than a c on, that's the category I sort myself into. (Also because the tradition of political philosophy I find most persuasive is the one generally identified as liberal.)
Comments
You're a dork
I'm an a$$
File in
I'm very middle of the road on issues, wouldn't say that I'm liberal or conservative, but I do think that anyone stuck on one side may need to broaden the spectrum. I like ideas from both. I think people in this country have become too "stuck" to a single group of ideas. Those same ideas or same groups aren't really bringing any new ideas.
On a side note, I like the story, though I wonder if you will see that "homeless" guy at another spot with more signs. I have a ton of these people in my area. They are full of crap. They're (here you go Kuzi) always out of gas or trying to get a bus ticket to Washington.
:-P
What you are referring to would look a lot like a parliamentary system. In these systems there are far more parties, each targeted to a specific portion of the electorate. The problem is that in order to govern, they have to form coalitions after the election. In order to form and maintain these coalitions, legislative and executive action still has to be carried out with the goal of appeasing the largest possible section of the electorate. The results are pretty much the same. It's said that the only difference is that in our system the coalitions among the factions are formed before the election (aligning into the 2 parties) while in Europe the coalitions are formed after the election (forming a government). However, their system does give fringe parties at least a voice, if not actual power.
With our Electoral College, and the way our congress is set up, changing to a system that could support more than 2 major parties would require a few constitutional amendments, and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
Why must the coalitions be formed before OR after the election? To me it seems to only further the darker side of politics...
Why not simply put the issue to vote and allow the count to speak?!? Majority rules right? Isn't that the whole principle of a democracy? (Or at least one without an electoral college to bung it all up)
Forming aliances and "adjusting" votes/opinions/etc as a group in my opinion leads to all the things that are wrong with this country... Send the lobbyist bastards home and just vote how you truely feel... If every official was elected based on their REAL beliefs then those votes truely would reflect the voice of the people... Rather than the companies with the most money...
I guess what I'm saying is... If you do away with the labels on the front side, then you have to do away with the labels on the back side as well... Do that and I'm convinced we'd have a hell of a lot better government...
A parliamentary type system would allow for more flexibility among the coalitions, with say Party A siding with Party B to push through tax cuts, but party B working with Party C to force education reform. There are some advantages to a system with numerous parties, but again, it really can't happen under our Constitution.
As a general matter, I endorse Scrambler's last couple of comments. Well said.
We tend to sort ourselves into either of 2 categories (red or blue, R or D, l or c) because that's the way we end up having to vote. I have very liberal views on some things, very conservative views on others, and libertarian views on still others, but when it comes time to vote, none of those issues are on the ballot; it's either Person A, or Person B. Neither entirely represents my views, but them's the choices. Since I think the contemporary issues that are most important are the ones I happen to be an l rather than a c on, that's the category I sort myself into. (Also because the tradition of political philosophy I find most persuasive is the one generally identified as liberal.)
i dont believe it.
he he he...
can we discuss those ideas? ...just curious.