Democracy only works if...

[RufuSwho]

The White House must change hands from time to time to allow failed policies time to heal.

We have in America what is known as a two-party system.

The founders basically built our country with the assumtion that all future leaders would try to overstep their role and screw things up.

The only way to keep the Republicans from giving all the domestic monies to big-business is to vote Democratic once in while.

The only way to keep Democrats from sticking taxes to the big-businesses and thereby driving them out of our country is to vote for Republicans once in awhile.

Again:

The White House must change hands from time to time to allow failed policies time to heal.

[Vanzazikon]

Yeah, I feel sorry for whoever have to fix and clean up the mess Bush made. :D I don't know but it seems Obama is tilting to it, of course, I'm just saying though.

[thematesV2]

is sticking taxes to the big business what drives them out of the country though? I mean, how much would you have to shave off of the CEO or owners salary to pay all the government's taxes per company? do we really need CEO's making millions of dollars a year? where is the common sense in that? sure, I believe they should make much more than the lower employees, but they make enough money to be 10 or 20 people..... many of them own multiple estates..... so where could that money be going? it could be going to pay those taxes......but no, we make other countries despise us for our poor working conditions and poor pay rates we bring them, greed and ignorance we project, we lose jobs here in our own country. and we get uber rich Business men/women who spend their money to keep their friends in office.

Also, just like every other form of government, democracy will never fully work. if government forms worked perfectly, then systems of governing like communism, socialism, and the lack of governing that is Anarchy would create utopias. but this cannot happen because of people error/corruption. Anarchy would be the best system (or lack thereof) but it is impossible, because someone would try to take control.

[Blitzkommando]

So we should vote for people whom we completely disagree with their voting record and viewpoints simply to "allow failed policies time to heal"? I don't buy it. By that logic after Clinton it was a good thing from your viewpoint for Bush to get elected so that we could "heal" from Clinton's failed policies. But I have a feeling it doesn't work that way, am I right?

And our country wasn't designed for a party system in the first place. That was added early on, yes, but it still wasn't a factor from day one. If anything the party system makes the whole system more devisive. Vote for the person whom you believe will do most what you would want to see done, not whoever is "not like the last guy".

Oh, and for the umteenth time, the United States is more a republic than a democracy. I don't know how much harder that needs to be driven home but people still think that we are a democracy.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

The founders did not establish a two-party system. Political parties were not a part of the original system, as they did not exist at the time. Originally, they were only Americans. No Republicans, no Democrats. Just Americans. We do, in fact, have dozens of political parties in the United States, some new, some old, some long since dead. It is important to understand that the political parties are privately operated organizations that are not formally part of the government. The fact that we really only have two parties of any significance, is largely due to the general unwillingness of people to think for themselves.

At this time, the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties has diminished greatly. You speak of Republicans giving domestic monies to big-business, but I'd like to point out that the latest "Bail-out" bill that has just passed through Congress was pushed mostly by Democrats (in fact, Republicans were deliberately excluded in negotiating the size of the bail-out), and will now be eagerly signed by our Republican president.

The problem has little to do with the parties that we are electing, and very much to do with the individuals that we are electing. I would personally like to see parties abolished altogether, so as to force voters to examine a politician's individual qualities, rather than allowing them to simply vote for the color of their preference.

People also have a strange notion of "wasting a vote", by voting for someone who is not likely to win. This is ridiculous, because an individual's vote is not worth anything. Without this concept, some of our past elections may have come out horrendously different.

Another determined problem that we have in our political arena comes down to the fact that we do not find candidates that are well-suited for the job. Local elections tend to be won by business owners and their ilk, who will then go on to become career-politicians. After winning a local office, they'll move on to an officer of larger prestige, such as a State Senate seat. This eventually brings them to a Congressional seat. Their career may have begun honestly, but the end is not so altruistic. A national Congressman must please certain parties, if he is to fund his campaign when he runs for re-election. If I do not please Exxon, who will fund my campaign? If I do not please Goldman Sachs, who will fund my campaign? If I do not vote in accordance with other members of my party, how will I gain their endorsements?

It is absurd. The fact is that State Representative and Senator is an exceptionally cushy job, where one may rest on his laurels, and be fed grapes by attractive young people. Even if the pay for the job were poor, the "contributions" made by lobbyists would make up the difference. Understandably, this attracts a certain sort of rotten person, and encourages these values in those who are ripe when they enter into that world.

So no, the problem does not lie in the parties that we elect. It lies in the individuals. Instead of electing politicians, we should be electing logicians-- people who make extensive use of logic in their professions. Programmers, high-ranking military officers, mathematicians: people who vividly understand the functional difference between what is correct and what is incorrect.

That is our solution. Not the juggling of political power between one political party and another, and certainly not in a time when the parties' leaders are philosophically indistinguishable from each other. This does not promote a balance-- it merely attempts to correct an imbalance with an opposite imbalance. It will not create stability.

[RufuSwho]

This does not promote a balance-- it merely attempts to correct an imbalance with an opposite imbalance. It will not create stability.

This is a very impressive argument.

I find myself agreeing with you despite the purpose of the thread.

[Dangerous55]

The founders did not establish a two-party system. Political parties were not a part of the original system, as they did not exist at the time. Originally, they were only Americans. No Republicans, no Democrats. Just Americans. We do, in fact, have dozens of political parties in the United States, some new, some old, some long since dead. It is important to understand that the political parties are privately operated organizations that are not formally part of the government. The fact that we really only have two parties of any significance, is largely due to the general unwillingness of people to think for themselves.

At this time, the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties has diminished greatly. You speak of Republicans giving domestic monies to big-business, but I'd like to point out that the latest "Bail-out" bill that has just passed through Congress was pushed mostly by Democrats (in fact, Republicans were deliberately excluded in negotiating the size of the bail-out), and will now be eagerly signed by our Republican president.

The problem has little to do with the parties that we are electing, and very much to do with the individuals that we are electing. I would personally like to see parties abolished altogether, so as to force voters to examine a politician's individual qualities, rather than allowing them to simply vote for the color of their preference.

People also have a strange notion of "wasting a vote", by voting for someone who is not likely to win. This is ridiculous, because an individual's vote is not worth anything. Without this concept, some of our past elections may have come out horrendously different.

Another determined problem that we have in our political arena comes down to the fact that we do not find candidates that are well-suited for the job. Local elections tend to be won by business owners and their ilk, who will then go on to become career-politicians. After winning a local office, they'll move on to an officer of larger prestige, such as a State Senate seat. This eventually brings them to a Congressional seat. Their career may have begun honestly, but the end is not so altruistic. A national Congressman must please certain parties, if he is to fund his campaign when he runs for re-election. If I do not please Exxon, who will fund my campaign? If I do not please Goldman Sachs, who will fund my campaign? If I do not vote in accordance with other members of my party, how will I gain their endorsements?

It is absurd. The fact is that State Representative and Senator is an exceptionally cushy job, where one may rest on his laurels, and be fed grapes by attractive young people. Even if the pay for the job were poor, the "contributions" made by lobbyists would make up the difference. Understandably, this attracts a certain sort of rotten person, and encourages these values in those who are ripe when they enter into that world.

So no, the problem does not lie in the parties that we elect. It lies in the individuals. Instead of electing politicians, we should be electing logicians-- people who make extensive use of logic in their professions. Programmers, high-ranking military officers, mathematicians: people who vividly understand the functional difference between what is correct and what is incorrect.

That is our solution. Not the juggling of political power between one political party and another, and certainly not in a time when the parties' leaders are philosophically indistinguishable from each other. This does not promote a balance-- it merely attempts to correct an imbalance with an opposite imbalance. It will not create stability.


Exactly.


I'd also like to add that a "change" in Washington is not going to happen from either McCain or especially Obama.

The system right now is broken, I don't know what it is going to take to fix it but my guess is we are going to have to hit rock bottom and have the citizens change it. You CAN'T do it by even voting Ron Paul or Barr in, you have to vote in local and state officials. You may even have to....well I'll leave the rest of that sentence out.

[RufuSwho]

Blitz:

The two-party system is the natural end result of election based government.

[RufuSwho]

Dangerous55:

I agree that voting in local elections is equally, if not more, important than voting for the president.

[Blitzkommando]

Blitz:

The two-party system is the natural end result of election based government.

Then why do other countries which also elect their officials have more parties which are mainstream? Australia, UK, Canada, and Japan all come to mind.

[RufuSwho]

oh? this is interesting

time to do some research...

sure i'm fired for multi posting my own thread, ah well

Blitz, nice call

interesting that each country has its own wiki page for government

while many of the countries you listed have two parties that are the most populated,
its true that the other parties do seem to have more of an effect on policy than the minor parties here in America


anyway, thanks for the insight

[Dangerous55]

Blitz:

The two-party system is the natural end result of election based government.

That isn't true, as others have said it has not come to pass in other countries. Maybe you meant a party system, not just 2? Remember, we accept parties as the natural flow of things. It isn't and shouldn't be. Parties have their uses but the government should not be this(emphasis) partisan.

It would be hard to avoid parties though. They represent the differences in various segments of America. Look at the Civil War, it would have happened without parties but they were used to push the different agendas forth. Ron Paul actually argued that partisan politics forced a Civil War, and without it the country would see slavery(and other problems) die of natural causes.

Remember, the spark that ignited the war was the election of "anti-slavery" Republican. Whether Lincoln was anti-slavery for moral reasons or not the end is the same. He wanted to stop the spread of slavery and eventually see it fade away.

[Ketchup345]

is sticking taxes to the big business what drives them out of the country though? I mean, how much would you have to shave off of the CEO or owners salary to pay all the government's taxes per company? do we really need CEO's making millions of dollars a year? where is the common sense in that? sure, I believe they should make much more than the lower employees, but they make enough money to be 10 or 20 people..... many of them own multiple estates..... so where could that money be going? it could be going to pay those taxes......but no, we make other countries despise us for our poor working conditions and poor pay rates we bring them, greed and ignorance we project, we lose jobs here in our own country. and we get uber rich Business men/women who spend their money to keep their friends in office.
CEOs made over two hundred times (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/economy/ceo_pay_workers/index.htm) the pay as average workers, up significantly from the 1980s.
Foreign companies are much lower: figure's I'm finding for Toyota (I think we can all agree is a highly successful company) show pay from 2004 for the CEO at under $1 million. Forbes (from 2006) is saying that the top 36/37 executives at Honda split $13million, this includes bonuses (my calculations show maximum $362000 average).
{Japanese car companies were used for my example because they were the easiest ones for me to remember at this time of night and the ones I heard had low CEO pay.}

As nice as it would be to see a no party system, I don't expect it to happen at any time in my lifetime. I think the closest we might be able to get anytime soon is to bring more parties up to a national level (Libertarian and Green are closest last I knew). These parties should focus strongly at local levels to build up support and work their way up.

As the government is now (in terms of non Democratic/Republican) we have 2 senators: Lieberman (CT) and Sanders (VT). Both often favor Dem (with Lieberman apparently going Republican for some foreign policy). Lieberman was an incumbent Democrat until he lost the primary to run for the seat in 2006, ran as an independent and won by the Republicans essentially endorsing him combined with his followers and name recognition. Sanders has been running for office since (Wiki says) 1972.

[foamcup]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. :lol:

Meira should have locked the topic after his post, there is nothing left to be said after that. Revolution is the only thing that will change the current system, and there's no guarantee that will be any better.