Success of US foreign policy.

[frigidweirdo]

Iraq's stability was at the barrel of a gun. Hussein was a nasty evil dictator. He was busily gassing the Kurds. He was issuing threats to other middle east nations.

So, it was at a barrel of a gun. The US doesn't have problems with dictators who use the barrel of the gun to keep stability. All previous administrations since WW2 have supported such people without finding a problem.

Women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, I mean, what the feck? The US has unwavering support for the Saudis. Oh, and they supply weapons and funding to people like ISIS as well. What the feck?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Ever heard of Proportional Representation? Probably not, the main two parties don't want people having this as an issue, so it just isn't an issue

You'd be safe in assuming that anything you know about politics, I already know in more detail.

Yes, in some ways you're right. However in a country of 320 million more political parties are required in order to represent the people. I'm not talking 20 political parties each with the power to make a difference, but two is ridiculous. The way it works at the moment means that no one gets a real say.

The Founding Fathers specifically warned against factions and a PR system is factionalization on steroids. It gives voice to fringe extremists. It's destablizing. Majority parties are held hostage by fringe parties that they need in order to form a majority.

Secondly, America presents unique challenges that a country like Sweden doesn't face. We're huge compared to them and our internal governance structure has 50 states to contend with. The Electoral College exists for a reason, so how do you image that having 10 parties would work in conjunction with the EC?

If you look at Europe you won't find this in many countries.

The UK has UKIP fighting to be taken seriously, the Lib Dems on the way down and then the two main parties. In Germany you have the two main parties and three other 2nd level parties who often make coalition partners, and have major influence in politics.

It's far more about the people than in the US, which is just big business buying politics for big business.

And what we have in the US is the TEA Party wrenching the Republicans away from liberalism and towards conservatism. The war within the Republican camp is moderating both the TEA Party and the Rockefeller Republicans, as well as the social conservatives. Actually look at them. If the SC existed in a PR system they'd be hugely popular and very powerful, but as part of the Republican Big Tent all they really get is lip service and no real policies.

The Democrats are too extremist for me now, the last thing I need in my life is to unleash the weirdos in the Democratic coalition and give them increased bargaining power which they can use to hold the nation hostage to their communist demands. I'm far happier than the semi-nuts factions in the Democratic Party work to moderate the completely nuts faction.

Putting aside the extremists of both sides, you're still left with the EC - most people don't want CA, NY and TX deciding the election on the own.

 

[Politico]

There is no foreign policy lol.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no foreign policy lol.

That is not true. The Obama Team has unveiled their foreign policy principles and objectives. It is:
Dont' Do Stupid Shit.
Seriously, that's it. Our gov't is being run by Beavis and Butthead.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ever heard of Proportional Representation? Probably not, the main two parties don't want people having this as an issue, so it just isn't an issue

You'd be safe in assuming that anything you know about politics, I already know in more detail.

Or maybe if I assume this is about arrogance, you're clearly going to know more.

Yes, in some ways you're right. However in a country of 320 million more political parties are required in order to represent the people. I'm not talking 20 political parties each with the power to make a difference, but two is ridiculous. The way it works at the moment means that no one gets a real say.

The Founding Fathers specifically warned against factions and a PR system is factionalization on steroids. It gives voice to fringe extremists. It's destablizing. Majority parties are held hostage by fringe parties that they need in order to form a majority.

Secondly, America presents unique challenges that a country like Sweden doesn't face. We're huge compared to them and our internal governance structure has 50 states to contend with. The Electoral College exists for a reason, so how do you image that having 10 parties would work in conjunction with the EC?

But what they didn't warn against was the current system. I doubt they could have foreseen that their system would be corrupted so much that PR would be a much better alternative.

Germany is a large country, 80 million people, it's a Federal system that has had to deal with a lot, including two countries being glued back together with a massive disparity in wealth.
Like I said, most PR systems don't have 10 parties, if they have a cut off point at the right percentage, then it doesn't usually happen.

In a presidential election it could easily be done like the French system, Germany doesn't have a presidential election. In the French system they have a run off with highest two going against each other.
The electoral college system is so out dated it's incredible.

If you look at Europe you won't find this in many countries.

The UK has UKIP fighting to be taken seriously, the Lib Dems on the way down and then the two main parties. In Germany you have the two main parties and three other 2nd level parties who often make coalition partners, and have major influence in politics.

It's far more about the people than in the US, which is just big business buying politics for big business.

And what we have in the US is the TEA Party wrenching the Republicans away from liberalism and towards conservatism. The war within the Republican camp is moderating both the TEA Party and the Rockefeller Republicans, as well as the social conservatives. Actually look at them. If the SC existed in a PR system they'd be hugely popular and very powerful, but as part of the Republican Big Tent all they really get is lip service and no real policies.

The Democrats are too extremist for me now, the last thing I need in my life is to unleash the weirdos in the Democratic coalition and give them increased bargaining power which they can use to hold the nation hostage to their communist demands. I'm far happier than the semi-nuts factions in the Democratic Party work to moderate the completely nuts faction.

Putting aside the extremists of both sides, you're still left with the EC - most people don't want CA, NY and TX deciding the election on the own.

The Tea Party has been working within the Republican Party. Here's the big problem. They're not fighting the Republican Party, they ARE a part the Republican Party. I'd say the Tea Party is a perfect example of why the US system is so hard to break down. Everyone else has smaller parties coming through, but not the US, it has then being part of the main parties.

If the Tea Party existed in a PR system, they'd have their own party. They'd take votes away from the Republican Party, they'd have to join together in coalitions to form govts. At the same time a more left wing party would exist and would form govts with the Democrats. The whole thing would then see more openness in politics/ Big money would have to support 4 or 5 political parties, I'd bet the Libertarians would make more of their party, would be more independent and would get a say too.
Big money would be replaced, in part, by new ideas. Political parties would attack other ideas more, present different ideas to the current slop that passes for politics.

Partisan politics that exists in the US right now would change, as people would find they couldn't just be in one party and attack the other party. They'd have to look around them and think about things, because there wouldn't be one easy answer to throw back at people.

On this board everyone just assumes I'm Democrat because my views are center left. Who needs thinking in the current system.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The electoral college system is so out dated it's incredible.

Why does the EC exist? It was invented in order to address an issue, right? Has that issue disappeared? If not, and you remove the EC, then how do you address the issue that the EC was put in place to address?[

 

[frigidweirdo]

The electoral college system is so out dated it's incredible.

Why does the EC exist? It was invented in order to address an issue, right? Has that issue disappeared? If not, and you remove the EC, then how do you address the issue that the EC was put in place to address?[

It was designed to address an issue. The issue hasn't gone away, the Electoral College though has failed to do what it's supposed to do for a long time now.

Actually back in the day the Electoral College was selected by the states, and not by the people themselves in a vote, as happens now. This meant the President was like the Senate, it was chosen by the states. The House being chosen by the people.

However 6 out of the 10 states actually had a system whereby the people voted for the elections, as happens now.

Now it's all about personality and things like that. Does the US really get the best person for the job? No, I don't know when the last time it did, certainly the media era it hasn't.