Proportional leadership, definitely ... one of the biggest problems with the US government is the Senate. I understand the argument about its creation in addition to the House of Representatives. But in reality, all that is occuring is that a vastly outnumbered rural conservative population is bogging down many pieces of legislation. If I were to reorganize the govt, I would immediately do away with the Senate. Proportional representation is the only way a system can be truly democratic.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What should America do next?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sava
But in reality, all that is occuring is that a vastly outnumbered rural conservative population is bogging down many pieces of legislation.I drink to one other, and may that other be he, to drink to another, and may that other be me!
Comment
-
well thrawn, the popular vote of a national election is the perfect indicator. The Senate system is pseudo-democratic. If there's a state with 3 people that elects all Republican leadership, and a state with 30,000,000 people that elects all Democratic leadership, the two states have equal representation, but in terms of overall numbers, its 30,000,000 to 3. That's an extreme use of numbers, but the concept is what's important. It is just a coincidence that right now the House is Republican controlled... the point is not who's in power right now, its the concept that I'm focusing on.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava
well thrawn, the popular vote of a national election is the perfect indicator. The Senate system is pseudo-democratic. If there's a state with 3 people that elects all Republican leadership, and a state with 30,000,000 people that elects all Democratic leadership, the two states have equal representation, but in terms of overall numbers, its 30,000,000 to 3. That's an extreme use of numbers, but the concept is what's important. It is just a coincidence that right now the House is Republican controlled... the point is not who's in power right now, its the concept that I'm focusing on.
ACK!Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!
Comment
-
I picked legalizing it, which is closely followed by allowing gay marriages. The rest we should not be doing.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
How can you trust the evil Chinazakstanis, DF?!?!I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Comment
-
America is the most democratic society in the world. here we are allowed to be communists, and we are free to use our money to what we want (no communist sh*t taxes like in europe).
Really, the United States was truly a great nation when it was first independent. For that time, their constitution was very radical and their governement very democratic. Today however, USA is no real democracy. First of all, while not using proportional representation, they are not better then the bolcheviks, who used the same system to "win" the elections early on.
And as long as you have a capitalistic society, there can be no true democracy, because the people with money can buy themselves to so much power they want/or have money to. And i´ve heard that the point with the democracy is equal power to all.
It is also not very democratic the way the presidentidal eections are held in the US. Can you be a president if you are poor?
Comment
-
Originally posted by KaiserIsak
America is the most democratic society in the world. here we are allowed to be communists, and we are free to use our money to what we want (no communist sh*t taxes like in europe).
Really, the United States was truly a great nation when it was first independent. For that time, their constitution was very radical and their governement very democratic. Today however, USA is no real democracy. First of all, while not using proportional representation, they are not better then the bolcheviks, who used the same system to "win" the elections early on.
And as long as you have a capitalistic society, there can be no true democracy, because the people with money can buy themselves to so much power they want/or have money to. And i´ve heard that the point with the democracy is equal power to all.
It is also not very democratic the way the presidentidal eections are held in the US. Can you be a president if you are poor?
America is the most democratic society.
Europe isn't as democratic, it's too communistic.
Today the US is no real democracy.
Capitalism stands in the way of true democracy.
<Kassiopeia> you don't keep the virgins in your lair at a sodomising distance from your beasts or male prisoners. If you devirginised them yourself, though, that's another story. If they devirginised each other, then, I hope you had that webcam running.
Play Bumps! No, wait, play Slings!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava
well thrawn, the popular vote of a national election is the perfect indicator. The Senate system is pseudo-democratic. If there's a state with 3 people that elects all Republican leadership, and a state with 30,000,000 people that elects all Democratic leadership, the two states have equal representation, but in terms of overall numbers, its 30,000,000 to 3. That's an extreme use of numbers, but the concept is what's important. It is just a coincidence that right now the House is Republican controlled... the point is not who's in power right now, its the concept that I'm focusing on.
The only problem is that if your senate was proportional as well as the House of Representatives, you would quickly end up with a situation where some 30-40 states would feel irrelevant to the process. This feeds feelings of alienation. As it is now, the senator for Maine or Rhode Island can exert some influence for their constituents. I don't necessarily see that as a terrible thing but it does lead to an ongoing situation where a minority of the population elect a majority of the Senate.
I guess it all depends if you place any value on having some form of effective regional representation. If the Senate were going to be purely based on population, you may as well just abolish it since in theory it should just mirror the HouseYou don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Comment
-
Why does everyone seem to assume that Democracy is a good thing? Are you parroting your high school civics course, or what? It just seems like, that for such a flawed system, democracy has so many supporters.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Proportionate representation, even though I watched "Bowling for Columbine" yesterday and lost the last spark of hope for America."The world is too small in Vorarlberg". Austrian ex-vice-chancellor Hubert Gorbach in a letter to Alistar [sic] Darling, looking for a job...
"Let me break this down for you, fresh from algebra II. A 95% chance to win 5 times means a (95*5) chance to win = 475% chance to win." Wiglaf, Court jester or hayseed, you judge.
Comment
-
Whoops, Sava and Odin! Time to brush up on Article V:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Comment
Comment