|
| [ Main Page ][ First New ] |
 |
<<
Re: Not mine, but had to share
Posted by kodrik
on Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 01:47pm>> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] You didn't care when the government decided it could spy on you without a warrant. You didn't care when they started telling you what you could eat. You didn't care when your kids' education was turned into indoctrination. You didn't care when they were more worried about military veterans than Islamic terrorists. You didn't care when they spent so much money that our entire economic system may collapse. You didn't care when they gave billions of your money to unions and corporations that were their political contributors. You didn't care when inert cosmetic features on guns were felonies. You eat the same food as you used to, you have your guns, abortion is legal, health care is still out of reach for many, guatanamo is still there, we are still fighting terrorist, you can still get drunk and get high. For some, Bush was the end of the world when he got reelected and for other it was Obama when he got elected. In either cases, America pretty much followed the same course. The economic collapse would have happened with a Republican or Democrat and the slow recovery also. Guns and Abortions are both still legal, there is still no universal health care and you still eat the same food. The truth is, things are not as cataclysmic as extremists and potilicians want us to believe, it's a long road to change things profoundly. Whether Obama or Romney win, America will not have a very different future in the next 4 years. SOPA was different than the above, it would have had profound and immediate uncertain consequences. Very few laws have such results in such short time and it is why many require Supreme Court decisions. SOPA is one of these laws that would have had more consequences on our society than who is our next president. If more people were able to look beyond the extreme rhetoric of both parties with a more detached view I believe America could move forward faster in a more efficient democracy. I would not wish to a dog or to a snake, to the most low and misfortunate creature of the earth-I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of [...]; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.~Bartolomeo Vanzetti |
|
<<
Re: Not mine, but had to share
Posted by voltaic
on Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 07:58am>> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] If more people were able to look beyond the extreme rhetoric of both parties with a more detached view I believe America could move forward faster in a more efficient democracy. I believe most people do look beyond the extreme rhetoric. The problem is that the extreme rhetoric takes up most TV time, so it seems louder and larger, and that in the end we still basically have a two party system, so rhetoric aside it is still Republican v Democrat. When a person only has two real choices (because the other choices are so totally marginalized), it may seem like only the extremists have a voice but that's not true. As you said, things go along pretty much the same 99% of the time no matter which one of the two gets elected. I believe this is because politicians know that extremism may be good for sound bites but bad for action. "it's good that they shop and spend and camp out waiting for the great deal to save $5 on a toaster." - Stealth |
|
<<
Re: Not mine, but had to share
Posted by kodrik
on Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 09:58am>> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] believe most people do look beyond the extreme rhetoric. You are absolutely right, we just need to just look at the approval congress to see that our representatives are not a representation of the population as a whole because you always have only two choices that are global compromises at each election. If the people believed the two party bullshit they would overwhelmingly be happy with congress. The senate represents the state and has two representatives per seat, elected through 2 elections, so they will always be representatives of the two main party elected individually. The house is supposed to be a proportionate representation of the people, but they are still elected individually by single member district so they are again representatives of the 2 party system Let's say instead of electing them individually you would have proportional elections at a state level. That would mean every person would vote once for the person they prefer and the ones will the top votes will get to congress. California would send 53 people. from pot smoking hippies to Hitler loving neonazis. Arizona would send 8 people including I'm sure Libertarians. The house would then better represent the people, and unlike now, each law would be passed with different majorities reflecting more the will of the people. In short, less bullshit and more laws that make sense. They do it in most democracies, it makes for much more colorful debates and views that can represent a larger of population that are silenced under a two party system can be heard. It might be good also to double or quadruple the number of representatives so smaller states like Nevada can also escape the two party monopoly. I'm not sure about this one, the House has currently 435 seats, 870 seats (times 2) would be manageable (they have 672 in Germany which is a smaller country) and 1,740 seats (times four) is in my view the ceiling of the reasonable. We could multiple the seats in the senate by 10 to 1,000 or another number, which would be 5 seats per election per state. What is the best representative number while keeping an efficient government, I am unsure. I know it will be harder to Lobbies to court 1,000 people with different views that 100 belonging to mostly 2 parties :). It would mean changing some laws but I don't think it would require a constitutional amendment as the constitution wanted the House to represent the people, it's just the main parties that are opposed to it. Article I, Section 2, clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Nowhere do I read single member districting,I think it's just a federal law passed in 1967 I believe. I would not wish to a dog or to a snake, to the most low and misfortunate creature of the earth-I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of [...]; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.~Bartolomeo Vanzetti |
|
|
|
<<
Re: Not mine, but had to share
Posted by voltaic
on Thursday January 19, 2012 @ 08:43am>> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] Whoever wrote that is making a good point in a stupid and ignorant and factually misleading way. Still, good point. "it's good that they shop and spend and camp out waiting for the great deal to save $5 on a toaster." - Stealth |