Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't believe it, but I'm in agreement with roysoldboy - at least, partially. In order for this to work, we'd need a parliamentary system. That is true. Where I disagree is in the idea that it would be a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing. The two-party system leads to an us-versus-them mentality on every issue. I think we can do better than that, and in a country that is so diverse, we need more than two voice representing us.
Don't you think it could become a problem if various parties started shacking up in this coalition or that one, as happens all the time in many European countries? If there's one thing we don't need here, it's a string of coalition governments, with some small, otherwise insignificant party turning out to pull the strings because they suddenly hold the key to a majority decision; things are already tied up enough as it is!
Do you fail to see that we couldn't elect a President that way. The Constitution would have to be amended for that election process. Then every time a sever change over any amount of time would require a new President. Therefore, we would have to switch a Parliamentary system.
What? I recall when Ross Perot and John Anderson ran and actually had a decent showing. I don't recall the Constitution not being able to handle the inclusion of a third. Our parties have evolved in our history and perhaps it is time for another evolution.
Originally the highest candidates receiving Electoral votes became te President and VP... not a bad system as each group would have representation. Seems it would encourage cooperation.
Then if we could eliminate PACs and Lobbyists... we might actually have chance.
If there's one thing we don't need here, it's a string of coalition governments, with some small, otherwise insignificant party turning out to pull the strings because they suddenly hold the key to a majority decision
We have that already. It's called the Connecticut For Lieberman Party, starring Joseph I. Lieberman.
Sounds like he is advoacting a dictatorship. That avoid poitics altogehetr. rememebr that poictics has been defined as the art of compromise.Kucinich is about as far left as the democratic party goes. he is part of that party fr the same reason Pual is a repblican;to get his sahre of the campign funding that got hi to congress in the first palce. Otherwsie he would never have gotten there.He shouold really be hobnest and say he does agree with his party choice but is just gredy for thew moeny and have done with it.But looking at his presdientail campaign not many actually would vote for him and his ideas.They picked arelatively unknown with little experiance which says alot.There is a great diffence between rethric and actual practices when given responsiblity as we have seen in every candidate.
It was time to ask that question 50 yrs. ago or more....brain dead American voters will continue to bicker over candidates that really have no political differences. What a bunch of morons!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc;11398344
[B
“If this is the best we can do, then it is time to ask ourselves whether the two-party system is truly [/b]capable of representing the American people or whether the system has been so compromised by special interests that we can’t even protect the health of our own people.
Sounds like he is advoacting a dictatorship. That avoid poitics altogehetr. rememebr that poictics has been defined as the art of compromise.Kucinich is about as far left as the democratic party goes. he is part of that party fr the same reason Pual is a repblican;to get his sahre of the campign funding that got hi to congress in the first palce. Otherwsie he would never have gotten there.He shouold really be hobnest and say he does agree with his party choice but is just gredy for thew moeny and have done with it.But looking at his presdientail campaign not many actually would vote for him and his ideas.They picked arelatively unknown with little experiance which says alot.There is a great diffence between rethric and actual practices when given responsiblity as we have seen in every candidate.
Kucinich was far from an unknown. He also happens to stand up for what he believes in and Kucinich's voting record has proven that he fights the good fight for the average American.
Campaign finance reform
Reform laws that make it hard for third party candidates.
I <3 Kucinch. I supported him during his Presidential run.
Too bad we can't have more in Congress like him.
In other countries there is a set amount that a candidate can spend on their campaign and that's that! Doesn't that sound more sensible and fair? Why do we allow good candidates to be pushed to the sidelines? Because Corporate America wants it so. On any given day in Washington there are fund raisers going on from early morning on. It's insane.
Lobbying Database
In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. We've got totals spent on lobbying, beginning in 1998, for everyone from AAI Corp. to Zurich Financial.
In other countries there is a set amount that a candidate can spend on their campaign and that's that! Doesn't that sound more sensible and fair? Why do we allow good candidates to be pushed to the sidelines? Because Corporate America wants it so. On any given day in Washington there are fund raisers going on frm early morning on. It's insane.
Lobbying Database
In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. We've got totals spent on lobbying, beginning in 1998, for everyone from AAI Corp. to Zurich Financial.
I've always known many of the people in Congress were corrupt. I've always had opinions about politics from around the age of 7. My parents would say, "You should go into politics" and my usual reply was, "Nah, too dirty. Too corrupt."
It certainly sucks that a lot of our Congress has been bought and sold. The people barely even count. They could do a poll and 90% of Americans could agree with a certain bill but if Corporate America or Wall Street doesn't like it...good luck.
I've always known many of the people in Congress were corrupt. I've always had opinions about politics from around the age of 7. My parents would say, "You should go into politics" and my usual reply was, "Nah, too dirty. Too corrupt."
It certainly sucks that a lot of our Congress has been bought and sold. The people barely even count. They could do a poll and 90% of Americans could agree with a certain bill but if Corporate America or Wall Street doesn't like it...good luck.
I agree. No, I have not read the book and I'll add to my ever growing list. Have you read any of Naomi Klein's books? She's brilliant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
