Quote:
I dont think our system will actually change and Im not convinced it should. But from your viewpoint, you might want to look into the Parliamentary system since that is a system that has a history. My experience with it was over 30 years ago in the UK so Ill talk about that. The party that wins the majority of seats in the Parliament gets to head the government. If no one wins a majority, they have to forge an alliance with a minority party, usually changing a stance on an issue or two and giving a cabinet position or two to the minority party as part of the negotiations in forming the government. There were often a few fringe parties such as the Scottish Nationalists that might have a seat or two, but the main parties were the Tories (Conservatives), Labor (further left), and the Liberals, the moderates in the middle.
Sometimes one party, always either the Tories or Labor, would win outright. (To me that indicates that a majority of voters are closer to the fringes than in the middle contrary to what some people think.) But often the Liberals would win enough seats to throw the election into turmoil. Then the Tories and Labor would start the backroom discussions to see who would win Liberals support to form a government.
One of the advantages of this is that the government can fail if they lose a vote of confidence and you have another general election in a few weeks, six or less I believe. The party out of power has a shadow cabinet so you know who would be in the cabinet positions if they dont have to negotiate a few of them away to get a majority. The people in charge have a voting record so you dont have to believe any of those campaign promises. You have history to go by, though sometimes positions can change if they actually have to take responsibility for their actions. And sometimes they have to negotiate those positions away to get a partner in government. Can you imagine the active campaign season only lasting six weeks!!!
The person in power has enough votes to pass a law. You would eliminate some of this brinkmanship we are seeing. But if the party in charge goes to the extremes, they can lose a vote of confidence and have to go back to the voters.
In my memory, Margaret Thatcher proved you could stick to your principles and effectively govern, but it does allow you to get rid of a failure pretty quickly.
To me, a disadvantage is that the party officials pretty much choose who gets to run for the top position, but I think that pretty much happens anyway despite what people think of our primary system. Occasionally there are surprises. But with this system, if you vote for a minority candidate, your vote may actually count, and not in just a symbolic manner.
I prefer our system overall with our checks and balances between the legislative branch writing the laws, the courts interpreting them, and the Executive enforcing them. I also like the protection from the tyranny of the electorate our Founding Fathers gave some of our officials. For example, the House members are always up for reelection so they have to be very aware of what the voters think. They have the responsibility to initiate money matters. The Senators, on the other hand, have six year terms, so they can take a more long term approach. They have the responsibility to ratify treaties, so a more deliberative level headed group is stronger on foreign policy. At least that is the theory and there have been times it worked.
As I said, I dont think we are going to change our system, but if you are planning on working for an alternative, I suggest you investigate something that has a history as opposed to trying to create a new system from scratch.
Quote:
I share a lot of your pain. I learned when Edwin (The Crook) Edwards was running against David (The Sheet Man) Duke for governor that I should not say I would never vote for someone. I never thought I would vote for Edwards, but when you only have two choices, you sometimes have to really hold your nose when you go to vote. For the record, I chose the Crook over the Grand Poop-Poop of the KKK. Both wound up in jail.
I consider the Republican Party has left me, and not in the Tea Party sense. I dont want the government in my bedroom, religion, or social relationships. I dont need government telling me thou shalt not, thou shalt, and thou shalt not in my personal relationships, no matter how boring they may actually be. Look at the first ten Amendments to get an idea which ones I am talking about. I do think the government has a responsibility to protect us from various elements in society. I think the Democrats often go too far in the other direction, but I admit I prefer the general philosophy of let me make my choice instead of dictating to me what I have to choose. To me it is amazing how the Republicans come across as being the party of individual freedom, yet they are the ones trying to restrict your choices. They have some good spin masters.
Ive been involved in big business enough to know that companies need some regulation. Its not that the companies are evil, but the corporate environment rewards those that get things done and help them make a profit. There are people in the corporate environment that will not hesitate to do something unethical if it advances their career, but it is generally frowned on for people to purposely break regulations. I know there are exceptions, but it was severely frowned on to do something illegal where I was. The ones that tend to get promoted are obviously good at playing corporate politics, a little competence is usually a benefit, and they sometimes find legal ways around the intent of regulations.
Again, I dont want totally restrictive policies. We are competing in a Global economy. I think we should have a cost-benefit analysis of all regulations. Cost and benefits are not purely money related, though that is a huge component. We do have some social responsibility to do what is ethical. After all, we are the USA. If we are better than others, we should be held to a higher standard.
I also do not vote a pure party ticket. I also dont look at the issues all that closely, though I do look at how people have voted when there is some history to go by. I try to look more at the person. I look more at the character that is revealed in the campaign more than what they actually say. I figure most of what they say is just pandering to get votes and has little to do with how they will actually govern once they are in a position of responsibility.
I also like them to demonstrate a knowledge of our system. An example. Someone running for a county office should not be talking about how he/she is going to take on Washington and win our country back (Win back from the voters, in my opinion). That is either just blowing smoke or they really dont have a clue what office they are running for. For someone running for county office I think they should be talking about how they will fix the county roads or how they stand on a specific local issue, something they actually have control over.
Im not real happy with the way the winners look at it either. When someone wins 50.1% of the electoral college vote, the claim a mandate for all their positions. If you only have two choices, you may not agree with all the positions one candidate holds. To me getting elected is not a mandate for the crackpot ideas the candidate holds, it is an indication that they are the preferred choice, but maybe not preferred by a lot.
Anyway, these are some of my thoughts. And no, I am not happy with any of the leading choices right now. I think it will be another hold your nose election.
