|
Post by Captain Mitchell on Apr 4, 2007 11:10:32 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. This leaves little choice, as they have enourmous spending capabilities. Perhaps there is a need for change, whether it be a spending cap, or forcibly splitting the parties. Or perhaps we return to the old days, where the election winner would become president, and the runner up would become vice president. Or perhaps it's fine, and nothing would be needed to be changed. Or perhaps I left something out, please share.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Apr 4, 2007 18:13:27 GMT -5
I think the football team supporter mentality surrounding the US parties is ridiculous. You get people supporting a team in the elections as if it were a sports team. So in the end parties can do what they want and have a guaranteed supporter base. A lot of western democracies have proportional systems too, so the percentage of seats in parliament is the percentage of votes to each party. It beats the winner takes all system of state by state voting here in the US as each state is bound to have a majority of one of the major parties.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Apr 5, 2007 8:29:25 GMT -5
meet the new boss same as the old boss.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Apr 5, 2007 12:25:48 GMT -5
A one party system would turn America into a dictatorship. this is the most popular system among liberals like Castro and Stalin. Once power is achieved by liberals in this type of systems they lock away there compition and stay in power till they die. And when they do die the power gets past to a son or relitive. A system that has more then 2 partys would also suck because who ever won would win with less then 50%. Liberals also like this system. A 2 party system sets the political left against the political right. Liberals hate this system because it forces them to play fair with people that they would otherwise shut down and shut up(stalinize). The best way to run a democracy is to leave it to the market. If you do not appeal to the market it is harder for u to raise money. Liberals hate the free market system because because the market cannot be controled and dictated too. For exsample, the electric car will not become prominate until they are better then the cars in the market now. Liberals would love to force all the little people into the little cars while cruising around in there private jets. What the country needs to do in my opinion is pack the house and the senate. We should have 1 congressmen per 100,000 people and 4 senators per state. Make senate terms 4 years long and have an election every year. This way public sentiment (the market) can have a far greater say. The founders just didnt conceve of a country with 300,000,000 people.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Apr 5, 2007 13:48:50 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. This leaves little choice, as they have enourmous spending capabilities. Perhaps there is a need for change, whether it be a spending cap, or forcibly splitting the parties. Or perhaps we return to the old days, where the election winner would become president, and the runner up would become vice president. Or perhaps it's fine, and nothing would be needed to be changed. Or perhaps I left something out, please share. What part of Sussex are your founding fathers from?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Mitchell on Apr 6, 2007 20:44:14 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. This leaves little choice, as they have enourmous spending capabilities. Perhaps there is a need for change, whether it be a spending cap, or forcibly splitting the parties. Or perhaps we return to the old days, where the election winner would become president, and the runner up would become vice president. Or perhaps it's fine, and nothing would be needed to be changed. Or perhaps I left something out, please share. What part of Sussex are your founding fathers from? I apologize for any confusion, I was just trying to figure out where everybody stood on issues. I believe the free market is the best way to do anything. It has systems of checks and balances in place (supply/demand). I am not perfect, but I believe the founding fathers didn't particularly like "parties", but i could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Apr 7, 2007 5:04:06 GMT -5
Oh - cool.
you changed your location from Sussex to USA
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Apr 9, 2007 10:48:28 GMT -5
In the days of the founding fathers political groups were called factions. The Federalist Papers have much to say on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 12, 2007 4:46:17 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. For me, they look about the same. Is there any easy to read article that explains the difference?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Apr 12, 2007 6:04:03 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. For me, they look about the same. Is there any easy to read article that explains the difference? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Apr 12, 2007 8:13:59 GMT -5
In the days of the founding fathers political groups were called factions. The Federalist Papers have much to say on this subject. They were called "factions" because at that time period, the founding fathers were in a revolution against england This term (factions) has been used throughout history - even today in the world conflicts (i.e. iraq/middle east, etc) A "faction" changes to something else when it becomes a legitimate, recognized group. You forgot to mention a key thing about these founding fathers and their "factions" - they represented "states" and english colonies that would later become states.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Apr 12, 2007 8:16:23 GMT -5
Or perhaps we return to the old days, where the election winner would become president, and the runner up would become vice president when and where'da'heck was this??
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Apr 12, 2007 9:46:28 GMT -5
Or perhaps we return to the old days, where the election winner would become president, and the runner up would become vice president when and where'da'heck was this?? This is the way it was handled in the first four elections. The first election that had seperate candidates for pres and vicepres was 1804. Jefferson and Clinton were elected.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Apr 12, 2007 12:30:31 GMT -5
Thats a horrable idea. They quit that for a reason. The reason liberals hate democracy is because democracy picks winners and loosers. Liberals think everyone should have a turn. (sounds well intended but so it the road to hell)
|
|