Text 11168, 148 rader
Skriven 2013-11-07 20:21:48 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 11102 av Bart Verhaeghe (2:292/907)
Ärende: US bashing?
===================
Hello Bart,

 WD>>>> The direction such a country moves towards is theoretically
 WD>>>> decided in elections where the winners try to form a coalition
 WD>>>> and go forward with their programme.

 LL>> The USA does not have a parliamentary system.  Nor does it want to
 LL>> have a parliamentary system.  The USA has a federalist system, with
 LL>> a republican form of government.

BV>yes they have.
BV>that's what I mean where we need to go to this system.

Direct popular vote is more akin to mob rule than what we think
of today as a modern democracy.  Continuation of that system would
eventually result in the fragmentation of a country - as what
happened in the former Yugoslavia.  Spain will probably be next.

 WD>>>> If a person has strong opinions, then he/she should vote
 WD>>>> accordingly.

 WD>>>> As it is now, Bart Verhaeghe is a notorious non-voter.

 BV>>> the american system might not be bad for us.

 LL>> The USA has a system that works for the USA.
 LL>> France has a system that works for France.
 LL>> China has a system that works for China.

 LL>> Imposing one country's system on another country's system
 LL>> does not work.  Whatever system a country has should come from
 LL>> the people of that country.  That is the only way a system can
 LL>> truly work, otherwise it would not be the "will of the people"
 LL>> and would be ignored or opposed by the people themselves.

BV>but ppl must dear to change the system also.

It all comes down to "what do the people want?"  If a government
(or party in power) fails to do that or take that into account,
that government (or party in power) will fail.  Changes will be
made, either partial or in full, until the people themselves
are satisfied.  Otherwise, the people will make the change on
their own - even if it means armed revolution.

 BV>>> the same system of voting by an electoral college and electors.
 BV>>> and if there are only two parties with an electoral college and
 BV>>> the electors, they can not fail to form a government.

 LL>> The electoral college system is a more modern form of democracy
 LL>> than the direct popular vote system.  Of course, there are certain
 LL>> advantages and disadvantages, as with any system.  However, an
 LL>> electoral college system is designed to act as a stabilizing force,
 LL>> keeping extremist elements from taking over.

BV>that's the system is where I want to go to because as I said with
BV>NVA you, can't speak, they are become too extreme.  and as NVA and
BV>Vlaams Belang get a majority here we go back to, the year 1940.
BV>because they both are extremist in my eyes.

Extremists?  You want to talk about extremists?  Adolf Hitler and
his National Socialists came into power as moderates, the people
of Germany viewing politicians of the dominant parties as being
extremists.  Can't say that I blame them, as politicians of that
time were talking AT each other rather than trying to find solutions
for problems that existed.  Kind of like Democrats and Republicans
in the USA sniping at each other today.  Hitler was going to be their
savior, and he was - in a warped way - as he did bring prosperity to
Germans throughout the Reich ...

 LL>> It is not really a question of political parties, or the number
 LL>> of political parties.  In fact, there is no mention of political
 LL>> parties in the US Constitution.  And George Washington was not a
 LL>> member of any political party when he chose to be president (some
 LL>> folks wanted him to be king - a king for life).

 LL>> Until the War of Southern Independence (1861-1865) the USA had
 LL>> multi-party elections, including for president.  Only after that
 LL>> period of time did Democrats and Republicans conspire to bring
 LL>> about a two-party system.  And even then, third-party candidates
 LL>> sometimes screw things up by jumping in a presidential race.
 LL>> George C. Wallace was the last third-party candidate who upset
 LL>> the apple cart by winning electoral votes which otherwise would
 LL>> have gone to the Democratic or Republican candidate.  That was
 LL>> in 1968.

BV>very intresting history.
BV>I did not know this one so it's alway's nice to learn new thing's.

George C. Wallace was one of a kind.  Won 5 states and 45 electoral
votes.  No other third party candidate has been able to win a single
state or electoral vote since.  Had he managed to throw the election
into the House of Representatives he would have been the kingmaker,
single-handedly deciding who would become the next president (and
vice president).  My guess is that he would have named Richard Nixon
as president and himself as vice president.  And if Nixon had refused
his offer, Hubert Humphrey would have been elated to accept.  :)

 BV>> the winner takes it all and and can provide the president.

 LL>> The USA does not have national or federal elections.  Presidential
 LL>> elections are in actually 51 separate elections - 50 state elections
 LL>> plus 1 municipal election.  The winning candidate must have a majority
 LL>> of electoral votes, not just a plurality.  With a total of 538
 LL>> electoral votes in the electoral college, that means a candidate needs
 LL>> 270 votes to win.  If no candidate receives enough electoral votes, it
 LL>> gets complicated, the presidential vote going to the House where each
 LL>> state gets 1 vote, and the vice presidential vote going to the Senate
 LL>> where each senator gets 1 vote.  If things are still tied up, it gets
 LL>> even more complicated ...

BV>sure but here we have a lot of party's and they all need to agree to,
BV>have a goverment that's why it toke a long time last election's.
BV>so I think the US system is still more easier than our's.

Although today only two parties are dominant in US politics, such
has not always been the case.  Nor is it the norm.  Third party
candidates have always been an influence on presidential elections,
even if a candidate fails to win any states or electoral votes.

 BV>>> and it would save us a whole lot of money.

 LL>> Yeah.  You'd only have to bribe a handful of folks rather than
 LL>> millions.  :)

BV>sure we will, because as the poor country's in eastern europe get
BV>richer, we become more poor, because of the Europeen Union.

That is why people in the western part of Europe should invest
in the eastern part of Europe.  But that won't happen.  Do you
want to know why?  Look at the women.  Especially young women.
Fewer and fewer young women can be found in the eastern part of
Europe.  Do you want to know why?  I think you already know the
answer to that question ...

 BV>> this is my thought on that.

 LL>> I much prefer a benevolent dictatorship.
 LL>> With myself as dictator.  :)

BV>of courrrrrrrse my frrrrriend :-)
BV>(the dictator movie quote)

And what a great guy, beloved by all.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)