Text 11095, 81 rader
Skriven 2013-11-03 02:16:50 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 11085 av Bart Verhaeghe (2:292/907.1)
Ärende: US bashing?
===================
Hello Bart,

[..]

 WD>> The direction such a country moves towards is theoretically decided in
 WD>> elections where the winners try to form a coalition and go forward with
 WD>> their programme.

The USA does not have a parliamentary system.  Nor does it want to
have a parliamentary system.  The USA has a federalist system, with
a republican form of government.

 WD>> If a person has strong opinions, then he/she should vote accordingly.

 WD>> As it is now, Bart Verhaeghe is a notorious non-voter.

BV>the american system might not be bad for us.

The USA has a system that works for the USA.
France has a system that works for France.
China has a system that works for China.

Imposing one country's system on another country's system
does not work.  Whatever system a country has should come from
the people of that country.  That is the only way a system can
truly work, otherwise it would not be the "will of the people"
and would be ignored or opposed by the people themselves.

BV>the same system of voting by an electoral college and electors.
BV>and if there are only two parties with an electoral college and
BV>the electors, they can not fail to form a government.

The electoral college system is a more modern form of democracy
than the direct popular vote system.  Of course, there are certain
advantages and disadvantages, as with any system.  However, an
electoral college system is designed to act as a stabilizing force,
keeping extremist elements from taking over.

It is not really a question of political parties, or the number
of political parties.  In fact, there is no mention of political
parties in the US Constitution.  And George Washington was not a
member of any political party when he chose to be president (some
folks wanted him to be king - a king for life).

Until the War of Southern Independence (1861-1865) the USA had
multi-party elections, including for president.  Only after that
period of time did Democrats and Republicans conspire to bring
about a two-party system.  And even then, third-party candidates
sometimes screw things up by jumping in a presidential race.
George C. Wallace was the last third-party candidate who upset
the apple cart by winning electoral votes which otherwise would
have gone to the Democratic or Republican candidate.  That was
in 1968.

BV>the winner takes it all and and can provide the president.

The USA does not have national or federal elections.  Presidential
elections are in actually 51 separate elections - 50 state elections
plus 1 municipal election.  The winning candidate must have a majority
of electoral votes, not just a plurality.  With a total of 538 electoral
votes in the electoral college, that means a candidate needs 270 votes
to win.  If no candidate receives enough electoral votes, it gets
complicated, the presidential vote going to the House where each state
gets 1 vote, and the vice presidential vote going to the Senate where
each senator gets 1 vote.  If things are still tied up, it gets even
more complicated ...

BV>and it would save us a whole lot of money.

Yeah.  You'd only have to bribe a handful of folks rather than
millions.  :)

BV>this is my thought on that.

I much prefer a benevolent dictatorship.
With myself as dictator.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)