US Presidental Elections 2008

[Avatar]

Fine. Republicanism is a lie!

--A

[Ur Dead]

We are a republic, Av.

If we were a democracy, in the strict sense of the word, all us citizens would be members of congress.

Good Lord Damelon!!!.. think of the cost overruns!!!
Then of course nothing would get pass Congress.

[emotional leper]

We are a republic, Av.

If we were a democracy, in the strict sense of the word, all us citizens would be members of congress.

Good Lord Damelon!!!.. think of the cost overruns!!!
Then of course nothing would get pass Congress.

Direct Democracy works for Switzerland.

[Avatar]

Yeah, and it's the one form that I'm actually fine with. Referendum-style government. That's the will of the people. But they've only got a population of 7 million, which, I suspect, makes a big difference in the logistics.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

IOW, the popular vote doesn't mean squat.

As so often appears the case in American politics. That's crazy...why doesn't the party just pick its nominee privately then? What a waste of time and money.

Actually that's exactly the way it used to be in US politics for many years, pretty much until the seventies.

[A Gunslinger]

The problem, IMO is that the process is antiquated considering the information and data infrastructure.

The whole process could actually be compressed quite a bit, and participation COULD be encouraged to a much higher degree.

[Avatar]

But the only way the popular vote means anything is if there is a clear majority? (How much of a majority btw? 2/3rds?)

--A

[Cail]

No, popular vote (except for ratification of a Constitutional Amendment) is a simple majority.

I think one of the larger issues (that probably deserves its own thread) is that....

-Sometimes the majority is wrong (slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc).

-Our method of governance has a way of ignoring the majority in the name of representative governance (IOW, we elect people to make our decisions for us). This is clearly happening right now with issues as diverse as gun control, abortion, and illegal immigration.

[aTOMiC]

No, popular vote (except for ratification of a Constitutional Amendment) is a simple majority.

I think one of the larger issues (that probably deserves its own thread) is that....

-Sometimes the majority is wrong (slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc).

-Our method of governance has a way of ignoring the majority in the name of representative governance (IOW, we elect people to make our decisions for us). This is clearly happening right now with issues as diverse as gun control, abortion, and illegal immigration.

Good point Cail.

My problem is (IMHO) those that we elect to represent us are usually the ones with the most desire for power and influence not necessarily those that are best qualified for the job or have the best interest of those they represent at heart. I keep thinking that the men and women who would genuinely do a terrific job are lurking in the shadows because they don't have the belly to put up with the election process. No sane person would. At least the way politics are handled these days.
Having said all that I still believe that representative government is more practical.
Perhaps you could try direct democracy in a small town or County and see just how well it would work.

[Avatar]

I think the logistics would defeat the object when it comes to a country with 300 million people.

But I absolutely agree about the people who would be perfect, but never try, whether it's because of the process, or because they never got the opportunity.

Reminds me of a story...damn, what was it...it's heaven, and all people are recognised for what they could have been. Some cobbler who never showed anybody anything he wrote was greater than Shakespeare in heaven...(the Mark Twain story about some captain visiting heaven maybe? (I wanna say A.B Stormalong, but that was a different story I think.)

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I've seen the "urban myth" of "those who want the job are the ones least qualified for it" mentioned several times in this thread and others.

Let me ask though, if we substituted the word "Physician", or "Policeman", or "hair dresser", or "carpenter", "computer programer", etc. for the word "politician" or "presidential candidate", then would the "those who want the job...." still apply?

"Anyone who would actually want to be a carpenter would be the one's who you would least like to be one". Come on, wouldn't you rather have the person who at least likes the job there rather than someone who has been condemned to it?

[Avatar]

I think it's a different issue, except maybe with policemen. The job of carpenter, plumber, doctor, whatever is not a job people seek because they're in search of power over others. Politics however seems to be.

Policemen, well, in my view there are 3 types: The type who want the power a badge and gun gives, the type who want the opportunity to enrich themselves, and smallest of all, the type who actually want to help their community.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Far as I'm aware of, the popular vote means absolutely squat. The electorial college is the real power, and if they decide to install a person as president, the popular vote is meaningless. There is no requirement for the college to follow the popular result.

[Avatar]

Yeah, one of the aspects of American politics that has long baffled me. At least here, it's the party with the most votes that gets to install the president.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Yeah, one of the aspects of American politics that has long baffled me. At least here, it's the party with the most votes that gets to install the president.

--A

That's OK, there are skads of people here who really believe that it's thier vote that elects the president.

[The Dreaming]

Here is the difference... In order to be successful as a Doctor, or Carpenter, or Actor, or Engineer, You have to be good at Medicine, Carpentry, Acting, or Engineering. In order to be a successful politician, you have to be good at campaigning. A good politician, is not necessarily a good statesman. (Case in point, Bill Clinton). A good Statesman is also not necessarily a good politician. (Case in point, Henry Kissinger). I would honestly prefer an honest and dedicated civil servant to a dazzling politico in the office of president any day. Most candidates are pretty far from being simply a dedicated civil servant.

[Avatar]

Sure, but on the other hand, it seems sometimes in our society that civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master. Who hasn't met a civil servant who's drunk with the little bit of power they do have?

But I know what you mean...somebody whose focus is on the job and not on the whole political tomfoolery.

--A

[The Dreaming]

Sure, but on the other hand, it seems sometimes in our society that civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master. Who hasn't met a civil servant who's drunk with the little bit of power they do have?

But I know what you mean...somebody whose focus is on the job and not on the whole political tomfoolery.

--A

I still would prefer someone with a bit of a power lust who is also competant to someone who is a dazzling and popular figure and completely incompetent. I would, of course, choose the dazzling figure who is extremely competent. (Churchill is a great example). I would take Nixon over Clinton any day.

[Avatar]

Guess I agree, (except about Nixon maybe ). Competence is always the most desireable value. On the other hand, just how much actual power does the president have?

If he said, all troops out of Iraq, would it happen just like that?

--A

[Plissken]

Hopefully not -- the actual logistics of a withdrawal of that scale would intrude on any Presidential dictate.