If the election were today who would you vote for?

[Mattsdong]

Each of our states elects two Senators, and each state elects Representatives proportional to the population of that state. In theory, it is supposed to balance out - each state with exactly two senatorial votes, regardless of geographical size or population; and house votes according to the population. So yes, the Congress is voted in by area - in both the house and the senate.

Only America would put in two public vote areas. What is the point of the senate then with a proper public vote? Are there a few hundred of these population decided representatives for a big city like New York?

 

[dong20]

I'm not sure if you are against all that or for it? Cause it sounds perfect to me How accountable do you want the Government to be? Too accountable, and every ridiculous minority group of bastards, Hippies for instance, Save the Squirrels being another possible group, would be having their ultimately worthless say and nothing gets done. Not accountable enough, and they get four years to roam doing whatever they want.

Well there's a world of difference between listening to lobbyists and taking action to meet there demands....not an easy balance I know but I would prefer to err on the side of listening than ignoring or dismissing.

Given a choice between our Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy (UK and Canada et al) and a Federal/Constitutional Republic (US) based Government it's probably six of one and half a dozen of the other, but I would probably choose the fomer, partly because it has the double fallback of being accountable to the Crown as well as Parliament and has a longer proven track record than any instance of the latter.

But whatever works, works. As we both have essentially the same systems and I guess you find it works for you too? That said the inability to directly elect the leader of Government is irritating to me. I also believe among other things there can be insufficient separation between the Executive and Legislative branches.

That said, I'm with you in general, until recently despite these flaws it's generally believed to have served England/Britain quite well for the better part of a millenium.

Answering to Parliament is the effective solution; Parliament is a group of people voted in from different parties in hundreds of areas, covering many different ideas, not specific to party because often one party fields two candidates. Parliament hence represents the people.

True....though each partly will field only one candidate for each seat, said candidate is chosen by the political party they represent (save independents) not the electorate directly. The key disagreement I have about believing Parliament truly representing the people (in the UK) is because:

1. Lack of proportional representation can mean a party with far less than 50% of the vote can form a Government with a significant majority. Until that changes the idea that it represents the true wishes of the electorate is seriously flawed.
2. MP's are not directly accountable to their constituents, they 'say' they are but they are not.

Eitherway the President is no more no less, than the Queen, but gets to use his powers And can't pull of those dresses.

As I understand it, in a political sense, the office of the Prime Minister has far less perceived 'power', yet, by virtue of Royal Prerogative, far greater true authority than the office of US president though it seldom exercises this fully. I would argue the the situation of the US president is closer to the reverse of that.

 

[Freddie53]

Only America would put in two public vote areas. What is the point of the senate then with a proper public vote? Are there a few hundred of these population decided representatives for a big city like New York?

This was a compromise. The large states some 200 years ago wanted proportional representation. The smaller staes wanted each state to have equal representation. So a compromise was reached the Senate would have two senators from each state. The Senate is supposed to protect the rights of the individual staes. The House of Representatives is supposed to protect the rights of the people. For the first 100 years of the American Republic, the Senate was selected by the individual legislatures of each state. Now both are popularly elected.

As far as having two houses in the Congress. The question of why are their two houses of Pariliament could be asked as well. In the old days, the House of Lords represented the established church and the noble class. Today, many of the House of Lords are appointed. It certainly has changed the House of Lords in he past few years.

As to which system is better. They both are the same if they are working. If there is a major problem, both break down. The Parliamentary system does seem more prone to having an unstable government in most of non English world.

 

[mindseye]

Obama seems like a good guy and I think he's got a promising career ahead of him, but isn't he too young to even run at this point?

Obama's 44, so he's old enough by nine years. I agree he looks much younger.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Obama's 44, so he's old enough by nine years. I agree he looks much younger.

44?? wow. I thought maybe he was in his early 30s, possibly even late 20s.

 

[hung9mike]

Though I have to say I like Jeb more than GW.

Having lived in both Texas and Florida under the reign of the Bush governors, I'd say Jeb is the lesser of the two evils. At least Jeb appears to have a soul. I'm fond of telling my friends in Texas that we in Florida got the smarter of the two. :tongue:

 

[titansg]

I would go with Hilary Clinton, but as long as there is nobody called Bush I will be happy:smile:

 

[B_big dirigible]

It's a bit puzzling that some of you are hot on Gore. If you vote for him you can't continue to whine about "Big Oil," as that's where his own money comes from. (His dad's stock buys, actually).

Re poll ratings, keep in mind that even if he could walk on water, no president will ever have ratings higher than the percentage he was elected by - those who voted against him when he was elected will always regard him as the spawn of the devil. In a close election, that's around 50%. In which case, a president with, say, 30% approval ratings has only annoyed 40% of his electorate. (If the poll itself is halfway competent - not something which can be safely assumed). In American politics, that's not a bad performance at all.

 

[davidjh7]

Having lived in both Texas and Florida under the reign of the Bush governors, I'd say Jeb is the lesser of the two evils. At least Jeb appears to have a soul. I'm fond of telling my friends in Texas that we in Florida got the smarter of the two. :tongue:

Of course, this is like saying that a 3000 degree hot poker digging slowly into your eye is better than better than being dragged by a pickup by your penis through the town until it disconnects and you die bleeding to death....and, yes, I DO think the graphic image comparisons are valid in this case

 

[art]

You forgot "None of The Above," usually my favorite candidate in any election. I think the present crop of politicians are criminals. I wouldn't trust the care of my dog to any of them, much less the running of the United States.

Liars, panderers, cheats and crooks, they are. And generally stupid, too.

Now let me tell you what I REALLY think!

 

[onlygettinbigger]

My vote is for Mark Warner currently because he looks like the kind of guy that might be able to rescue someone from a spaceship in a shiny metal jumpsuit

 

[rodsbrow]

Sen. Evan Bayh D-IN.

Really? I'm an Indy native (translation: blue city in red--no, CRIMSON--state), and while I applaud his recent voting record, he has all the presence and passion of a stale waffle.

Any thoughts on two other dems: Gov. Bill Richardson or Gov. Howard Dean?

(and speaking of Richardson, do you think our country is ready for its first Latino president?)

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

The rest of the world is super screwed up. I don't give a damn about their opinion. They constantly blast the United States but want us to give them all our money and take their crap. F'em

 

[Dr Rock]

i love these threads. they're awesome for bringing out all the trolls and imbeciles so i can catch them all at once in the bozo bin net. thanks to this thread alone, there are like 4 or 5 more cretins in my ignore list that would otherwise still be free to roam.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Re poll ratings, keep in mind that even if he could walk on water, no president will ever have ratings higher than the percentage he was elected by - those who voted against him when he was elected will always regard him as the spawn of the devil. In a close election, that's around 50%. In which case, a president with, say, 30% approval ratings has only annoyed 40% of his electorate. (If the poll itself is halfway competent - not something which can be safely assumed). In American politics, that's not a bad performance at all.

This is extremely untrue. Look at GW's approval ratings shortly after 9/11. They were through the roof. Presedential job approval ratings of 70-80% aren't really all that uncommon, and in times of national crisis they often rise to the 80-90%+ range. Winning an election by that kind of majority, however, is almost unheard of. Politicians who have run uncontested have come up with less than 90% of the vote before.

 

[horsehungtim]

Al Gore.

I want a president who gives a shit finally.

It's too bad he didn't give enough of a shit when he "lost" the election. The only way to take America back is to stand up to the muckraking and bullying that has been stock and trade lately. I don't think any of those choices will unify a party.

 

[jdcnow]

Rudy Gulianni (forgive me if I misspell his name) gets my vote. Look, I could honestly give a good hard crap about Republican vs Democrat. In this case, Rudy gets my vote -- why? He knows how to get things done in a crisis situation.

You know those 2-sided books you see in bookstores with one novel on the front and another on the back?

Rudy Gulianni and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin should get together.

On The Front:
"How to effectively and efficiently run a major city during an emergency situation," by Rudy Gulianni

On The Back:
"How to mismanage and misrun a major city during an emergency situation," by Ray Nagin

 

[faceking]

No offense to Hillary (actually yes)

but she carries VERY little credentials and has very very political past. not sure what expertise she really carries...

if you want a female president, regardless of affinity, Condy Rice is 30X smarter than Hillary, much less Bush. if you want to go Democrat female... be it Feinstein, or someone with some reason... Hillary is so corrupt and will be more about posturing and won't be able to make any good change.

jeb isn't qualified either... career politician. yuk.

Guiliani is so underqualified it's ridiculous... not so much with the man, but with the administration . Schwarzenegger may not have been the most qualified, but he brought a veteran well-respected administration (via the Pete Wilson clan). I don't see what Guiliani brings with him, other than party interests that pay their way in to that administration. Fualt Bush Jr all you want.. but Powell, Rice and Rove are all-star cabinteers.

Gore... would make no impact on anything. If that's what you want, so be it. But reminds me of Carter/Ford.

Actually... john mccain fucking gives a shit about the country... and is the most reasonable guy there is...

he shoulda/woulda won in 2000 and would won in 2004. he woulda take "some" action in Iraq, but not dug such a hole.

he's strong on immigration, but reasonable about. fiscally sound, and not too socially liberal.

yeah you can't have every issue.

 

[Hatched69]

Sen. Evan Bayh D-IN.

Yup.
Otherwise, whomever I dislike the least...

 

[B_dxjnorto]

No offense to Hillary (actually yes)

but she carries VERY little credentials and has very very political past. not sure what expertise she really carries...

if you want a female president, regardless of affinity, Condy Rice is 30X smarter than Hillary, much less Bush. if you want to go Democrat female... be it Feinstein, or someone with some reason... Hillary is so corrupt and will be more about posturing and won't be able to make any good change.

I feel the same way about Hillary and Condy. I'd be happy to vote for a woman, but not Hillary. Whether she's dirty or not, she's had dirty pool enough for me not to trust her. Also, something about that stentorian voice when she gets in full cry. Maybe I am sexist.