United States Elections - 2008 downticket races: Senate, so on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that."

In a democracy, and as far as campaigning goes, people would get confused. Think about how many canididates you would have 😕

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that."

Originally posted by chithappens
In a democracy, and as far as campaigning goes, people would get confused. Think about how many canididates you would have 😕

That was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of a new system for the executive branch...but I thought that that point was null considering at the beginning of the year, we had 10+ "major" candidates for the presidential election. We would definately get more candidates...but we have plenty already to term it confusing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Might be an idea. Another would be to limit the power of the president and to strengthen those of the parliament. Also make the elections more reflect popular votes. You could assign the seats in a list way for example. In Germany we have that a list, while at the same time voting for our specific represantative. I think it is a pretty smart system for a pretty stupid system like democracy anyways.

That was my idea behind it. Too much power for one man. Limiting that power of the president by making "his" votes "their" votes. Similar to the supreme court. I am a believer in Checks and Balances; I like the idea. However, I don't think it is used enough. When we have a majority of congress wanting to set an end to the campaign in Iraq and a president who Vetoes left and right but a congress who is too afraid to override that veto, we need a better way to run the the system of checks and balances. This is my opinion, of course.

Mike Gravel joined the libertarian party. I thought people should know that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Mike Gravel joined the libertarian party. I thought people should know that.

If people are still using that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Might be an idea. Another would be to limit the power of the president and to strengthen those of the parliament. Also make the elections more reflect popular votes. You could assign the seats in a list way for example. In Germany we have that a list, while at the same time voting for our specific represantative. I think it is a pretty smart system for a pretty stupid system like democracy anyways.

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others."

Originally posted by Strangelove
Democracy is a stupid system, now?

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now? I have been saying that for months now. And though Churchill did many great things, I don't agree with this quote. We have a ridiculous, mind blowingly blinding believe that Democracy is the greatest thing and that everyone should have it, and if we look at it, it's just as oppressive as any other system. Also, we sadly seem to equate it with freedom lately.

So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right?

Yes, he is all for pure Anarchy.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right?

Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

Quoted your quote for truth. 😄

Originally posted by Bardock42
.Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

It's true, but what does a voter have to do to become the not-so-average voter? It's very true, but it's also very arrogant. I'm all for an educated, informed and intellignet voter, but how do we deny the right to those who aren't; other than making the right to vote something someone earns through merrit?

Originally posted by Devil King
It's true, but what does a voter have to do to become the not-so-average voter? It's very true, but it's also very arrogant. I'm all for an educated, informed and intellignet voter, but how do we deny the right to those who aren't; other than making the right to vote something someone earns through merrit?

Problem solved.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) The whole average theme came from you.

I just needed to coin it something. It's a generalization no matter how you put it.

2) Duh, there are lazy, apathetic people in college. My point is that if one is around a majority of people who already don't care and don't have the resources to make change, how can you expect that person to care at all? Again, cute idea, but it's rare. This is a democracy (which makes it seem like a duh point) but even without that system, ALL revolutions occur amongst the masses. A few informed, optimistic people can not make change. History changes with the masses, not the witty elite.

Yo Strange, mind addressing this?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should just deny it to everyone.

Problem solved.

So, explain the merrits of no government to me, again? No national infrastructure? No state infrastructure? Self-regulated business practice? No justice system? No military? No way of making sure other people don't form governments?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, explain the merrits of no government to me, again? No national infrastructure? No state infrastructure? Self-regulated business practice? No justice system? No military? No way of making sure other people don't form governments?

And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.

I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society.

People suck so the systems all fail.

Oh well

Originally posted by Bardock42
The merits are private infrastructure. Market regulated business. Private Justice System. Private protection. Higher responsibility.

And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.

I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society.

wow.

Originally posted by Devil King
wow.