| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 07/09/2007 : 12:04:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Anyone else have an example of something (anything) Bush has done that was beneficial to our country?
EM :)
On the astonishingly rare occasions when Bush has actually tried to do the right thing [the Dubai ports deal, immigration reform], his constant fearmongering has come back to bite him. You can't keep people frightened for that long and then just turn it off like a light switch. Nor will the conservative broadcasting gasbags just turn it off whenever you decree. You can push the Congress and Supreme Court around, but not Fox News. |
Edited by - randall on 07/09/2007 12:05:31 |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 12:57:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm talking about a legal, recognized way to actually question a system that clearly isn't working anymore. And, b4 you ask, no, I do not have the answers, why should I?
That's not too difficult. Think up a good alternative and people will listen. Isn't questioning a system without having a clue what to do about it a bit like criticising death without having a plan for immortality? 
I also don't like a system that assumes compliance and punishes those who don't comply, but I don't have a clue what other way to run a society, so I'm happy enough with things the way they are.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 13:07:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I think it's high time we moved to a system wherein all the votes are tallied and the winner is the one with the most votes, period. It doesn't change the process at all, the winner is... the winner.
An even better idea is to chuck out your system and replace it with NZ's system. We chucked out our antiquated and horribly unfair system (the same system the UK currently has) in 1993 in favour of proportional representation. We used to have a government that got 40% of the votes but had 60% of the seats and unbridled power. Then they used to do very unpopular things that the majority didn't want.
Our current system is democratic. If a party gets 40% of the vote, they get 40% of the seats. If they get 7% of the vote they get 7% of the seats. Etc. The end result is we could never have a government that does something unpopular, as it requires greater than 50% of parliament to vote for it, which required the votes of 50% of the people. We end up with stability, and two main parties run by intelligent centerists who work together when they need to, and use minor parties when they need to. It's pure democracy in action. I would absolutely hate to go backwards into the dark ages with the UK or USA electoral systems.  |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 13:28:45
|
| The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it would change the dynamics of campaigning to only th e10 or so largest states. And smaller states like my Arkansas and WHL's Indiana would largely be neglected - their votes simply wouldn't count. This would mean that presidential candidates would not be accountable to issues more common in smaller states and would only focus on issues that matter for big urban areas. The EC forces candidates to campaign in any state where it is close - to the detriment of California for example which is solidly blue as it were - the difference is that California has the most congressman so this somewhat balances out. When else would Nebraska's 8 electoral votes be so coveted - this mirrors to some effect the parliamentary system. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 13:32:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm talking about a legal, recognized way to actually question a system that clearly isn't working anymore. And, b4 you ask, no, I do not have the answers, why should I?
That's not too difficult. Think up a good alternative and people will listen. Isn't questioning a system without having a clue what to do about it a bit like criticising death without having a plan for immortality?
I also don't like a system that assumes compliance and punishes those who don't comply, but I don't have a clue what other way to run a society, so I'm happy enough with things the way they are.
Whoa there cowboy ... I never said I didn't have a clue ... what I'm saying is that whatever I think or you think ... there is no proper recognized -- that is recognized by the people who currently have the power to change things -- platform to discuss alternatives. Besides, listening ONLY to my or your or any other one person's alternatives is not the point. That's only the path to tyranny - on however tiny a basis. The point is to discuss, share ideas about possible alternatives that result in engagement for all.
Our species has been around in evolutionary terms for about a million years and it's only in the past few thousand that political systems have been developed which ensure power-elites and their self-fulfilling continuation. The intervening years have seen ingenious ways of convincing those not in such elites that they should just leave everything to the experts or the richest or the ones touched at birth with seeds of dynasty or whatever.
Given such a construct, the mechanisms for questioning the system let alone changing it grow fewer and fewer. Don't you find it at least of some concern that the one tool - the vote - which is lauded by the power elite as the 'people's tool, the people's voice' has been so corroded? that it has so ceased to carry even a hint of participation that every year and at every election the turnout is less and less?
So, in the end, what does representative democracy mean? Who are the electees representing? There are systems yet to be thought of. Why should we rely on those which have been serving only a few? This thread, nor any current thread, is not the place to change anything. I don't have definitive answers, but I do have ideas. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one asking questions.
It seems to me if millions of people can be engaged to vote for Big Brother; if global rock concerts can raise people's awareness of issues like poverty or global warming or animal welfare ... then we should be able to devise an effective recognized platform for a discussion about the very nature of political systems and how they might be altered to include and not exclude the people they're meant to serve.
imho - criticizing death isn't at all an analogy because it isn't something we as human beings created, nor can we [so far as is currently possible] do anything about its inevitability. Political systems were devised by people. Anything that is the construct of the species is a priori within its power to alter.
Discussions that focus on this candidate or that, this party or that, however erudite can only ever be 'local' and don't really address the wider issue of what's wrong with the concept of representative democracy.
So here are 5 questions:
1. Are you content with a system of representative democracy that doesn't fairly represent you, your family, your colleagues?
2. Do you think there's a way to change the system so it provides a more equitable alternative?
3. Do you think there's a correlation between what happens at a local level, a national level, and a global level?
4. Do you think there are issues which affect your life that transcend the policies of any particular political candidate or party?
5. Do you think that most of the choices you make in your daily life are in some way political choices?
Okay, I've had enough space on this.   Do with the above what you wish ... I have no wish to impose anything on anyone - 'cause I'm that kind of girl 
I know - it's a film site.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 07/09/2007 13:35:14 |
|
|
|
Montgomery 
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 17:30:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
imho - criticizing death isn't at all an analogy because it isn't something we as human beings created, nor can we [so far as is currently possible] do anything about its inevitability.
I don't know why Sean is concerned with avoiding death. He's definitely going to come back as a penguin.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 17:40:19
|
[quote]Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So here are 5 questions:
1. Are you content with a system of representative democracy that doesn't fairly represent you, your family, your colleagues? No. I was content with a system that looked out for the majority's wishes. But, currently, I don't think our President cares for the people at all. Just profits and giving favors to his friends. And leaving the legacy of having brought "freedom" (whether they want it or not) to Iraq.
2. Do you think there's a way to change the system so it provides a more equitable alternative? I liked the NZ system. That seems fair. You get the same percentage representation as the percentage of the people who voted your way. Simple.
3. Do you think there's a correlation between what happens at a local level, a national level, and a global level? Yes, of course. We're all in this together. Whoever still thinks that the actions of one cannot affect many just isn't reading the news. And since we all share this world and it's getting smaller all the time, we all should care about all of us.
4. Do you think there are issues which affect your life that transcend the policies of any particular political candidate or party?
Again, yes. Completely. We get more done in America, when we have a President and Congress and Senate, that guides from the center. Clinton was a centralist and even though the GOP did their best to get him booted, he accomplished an incredible amount of things during his presidency.
5. Do you think that most of the choices you make in your daily life are in some way political choices?
That's a toughie. Many of my choices are related to my family and friends, so possibly, but not directly.
Bafta, I think the U.S. is definitely ready for a different form of voting to decide our elected officials. I wonder why we have to go through primaries. Why can't all those who want to run for president just get their name on the ballot? It seems foolish to have to make it through some kind of state by state primary thing. Often the candidate I wanted, withdraws before it even gets to Michigan. I'd rather have all the names on the ballot and let the best man, or woman win.
EM :) |
Edited by - Montgomery on 07/09/2007 17:42:22 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it would change the dynamics of campaigning to only th e10 or so largest states. And smaller states like my Arkansas and WHL's Indiana would largely be neglected - their votes simply wouldn't count. This would mean that presidential candidates would not be accountable to issues more common in smaller states and would only focus on issues that matter for big urban areas. The EC forces candidates to campaign in any state where it is close - to the detriment of California for example which is solidly blue as it were - the difference is that California has the most congressman so this somewhat balances out. When else would Nebraska's 8 electoral votes be so coveted - this mirrors to some effect the parliamentary system.
Hmm, I belive that in a proportional system like NZ the exact opposite of what you outlined is true. Candidates can't afford to neglect anywhere as every vote counts. E.g., if the GOP didn't bother campaigning in Nebraska and the Democrats did, then one could assume the Democrat vote would increase, which would increase the overall percentage of the vote the Dems got nationwide and they would end up with more representatives in parliament.
Under the currect EC system, most votes are completely wasted. E.g., is there any point in anyone bothering to vote in presidential elections in Utah? The result is a foregone conclusion. I'd guess this may be the principal reason for the USA having the lowest voter participation (I think?) in the Western world. Why bother voting when it doesn't count?
Under a proportional system, by definition, all votes count, wherever in the country they were cast. I don't believe any region in NZ considers itself neglected, parties simply cannot afford to neglect anyone, they need votes from everywhere, and a vote from a farmer in the deep south has exactly the same weight as a vote from a city slicker in the capital. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:46:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
imho - criticizing death isn't at all an analogy because it isn't something we as human beings created, nor can we [so far as is currently possible] do anything about its inevitability.
I don't know why Sean is concerned with avoiding death. He's definitely going to come back as a penguin.
EM :)
Braaaaakkkkk!!! Peep peep! |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:57:28
|
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So here are 5 questions:
1. Are you content with a system of representative democracy that doesn't fairly represent you, your family, your colleagues? OK, I'm one of 4 million Kiwis, so my representation should be 0.00000025 of the total. That would be fair.
2. Do you think there's a way to change the system so it provides a more equitable alternative? People have been thinking up society structures for millennia, and I haven't heard of a better one that what we have now. But I'm all ears.
3. Do you think there's a correlation between what happens at a local level, a national level, and a global level? Yep, to some extent.
4. Do you think there are issues which affect your life that transcend the policies of any particular political candidate or party? Yep. I'm in agreement with most of NZ's political parties most of the time, and they are in agreement with each other about most things, most of the time, so I'd say you're right. They argue about (and get media coverage on) the issues that they disagree about.
5. Do you think that most of the choices you make in your daily life are in some way political choices? Nope. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 03:46:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Under a proportional system, by definition, all votes count, wherever in the country they were cast. I don't believe any region in NZ considers itself neglected, parties simply cannot afford to neglect anyone, they need votes from everywhere, and a vote from a farmer in the deep south has exactly the same weight as a vote from a city slicker in the capital.
Hadn't ever thought of it that way before. Just figured that candidates would kowtow to the urban masses and to hell with us hayseeds. |
|
|
|
Stalean
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 15:34:44
|
Who made this cynical quote?
''Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.''
Answer:
Hitler's deputy, Herman Goering
If you think this didn't happen in America or hasn't happened in every nation, then I have a nice piece of swamp land I'd like to sell you.
Here's another quote by G.K. Chesterton (not A.K.), '''My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'''
And, this kernel of wisdom from good ol' G.K., "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives [I'll take that to mean Liberals]. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
Obviously, things haven't changed much since G.K.'s day (May 29, 1874�June 14, 1936) or Goering's (January 12, 1893 � October 15, 1946), for that matter. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 00:46:24
|
| Thanks for those excellent quotes, StaLean. I think Goering is exactly right, and that Dubya agrees with him. |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:12:27
|
Since 9/11 when they established the different Terror Threat Levels, the threat level standing has risen every time there was something bad happening with the White House or the GOP, or when the DEMs had something good happening. It is a great diversionary tactic.
EM :) |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:26:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Since 9/11 when they established the different Terror Threat Levels, the threat level standing has risen every time there was something bad happening with the White House or the GOP, or when the DEMs had something good happening. It is a great diversionary tactic.
EM :)
Wag the Dog ... not just the movies
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I love Keith Olbermann
