I used to be the "it's your duty as a citizen" type, but I do see the futility of it for most of us.
And being "educated" isn't necessarily enough. I'm smart and (I think) well-informed for elections. But, for example, had I been of voting age back in '00 I would've voted for Bush, then it switched to Gore for a time later in life, and now I'm not sure who I'd vote for if I could've. Green Party? write-in? The two party system is so limited.
But my "informed" opinion has changed drastically, meaning that it's as much the ideas you are exposed to as the actual level of education you have, that determines your vote. It's all very arbitrary.
And now, there's so much in either party I disagree with, or each individual candidate. Could I vote for a Dem, disagreeing with them as much as I do on economic matters? Could I vote Republican, disagreeing with them as much as I do on social issues? Could I vote for an independent candidate, knowing it's essentially a waste of a vote in such a dualistic country?
There's no good answer. And I may just be a very in-formed non-vote on election day. I'll go vote for local stuff and just leave the president slot blank.
With a country this large, and with a large amount of centralized power, the push will always be toward 2 parties. It's not quite an inevitability, but it's close.
I'm much more of an advocate for decreasing the power of government, so that elections aren't as important. But they are because we are no longer a capitalist democracy, but have some heavy shadings of socialism with the ludicrous number of government powers and govt-run programs. The amount of power and responsibility our gov't is given means that it will remain a 2-party system barring anything short of a public revolution or hundreds of years of gradual decline in gov't intervention.
There needs to be a strong central government. otherwise America would be more like fifty individual states rather than the fifty that make up one country.
Limiting executive power would also make presidential elections less important.
there is a difference between limiting and eliminating. our democracy is based on a system of checks and balances. if not than its a dictatorship. ever hear of that 'gray' thing? ...you know what? nevermind.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
How does limiting executive power create a dictatorship? It would take power away from one person, the pres., and give to many, the legislature and supreme court, making the government LESS like a dictatorship.
Someone brought this up already and I do not want to take credit for it, but it does strike me as odd that no politician is "middle class" once they run for whatever office.
Democracy is a joke in application.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
The point of voting is to make people feel like they've contributed something, or that their opinion has effected some kind of large scale decision, when in reality it didn't.
Yes...the same people will hold power...why bother with democracy all it does is create a greater need for politicians to keep the general population happy- when really they lazy idiots who are totally entrapped by the media and spin...lets get rid of the dressings.
Putting all your power into one person does make a country a dictatorship as long as that person has to be elected or re-elected on a regular basis.
It might not be the best way to run a country if you purely want to look at what the people want. It might however create the strongest government and give the government actual power to change things. Governments that are elected by the people and then constantly get challenged have a hard time doing anything making the country pretty dull. If nothing changes then politicians have no effect.
If anything the people have to much to say, not to little.
Well a government is good. You need somebody to rule the country and keep the best interest of the people in mind. A different kind of government like the one you suggested wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
That's not entirely true. The power just lay with a lot of people. Still Athenian democracy's have a lot of downsides as well. Mostly that people are to stupid and to busy to vote on every single topic that comes up in a discussion and a democracy like that can not possibly be expected to run a large country.
And why do you want the power to be in the hands of the poor? If the poor control everything that is as much a failure to democracy as when the rich do it. Perhaps even more because the rich can buy themselves power which is logical in a capitalist market, which we should all agree on is the best market system for a democracy. Poor people can not and in giving them all the power you take away the power from other people. If you give neither all the power and let the people decide on who should have the power, or in the case of an Athenian democracy let all people have the power then you would have a real democracy.
Although you would likely face numerous problems like the one's we have now or thousands of others especially in larger country's.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 30th, 2007 07:05 PM
