Totally off-topic poll

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by tinkthank:

quote:

---

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinkthank:
...
allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term.

---

Yes, but you have 6, we only have 2. This is not a mere contingency and it is not a trivial difference.

---

You know what is funny? I've been several times in Israel. They have 100% democracy in your definition (parlament/election-wise, let's not get into discussion about arabs, counter-terrosrist measures, etc.).

So they have dozens of political parties in Kneset (Israel's parlament), some of them are very tiny. But it is huge pain in the arse to make a working "goverment coaltion", and even parties with 1 or 2 seats can very often become king makers, meaning they wield largly disproportional ammount of infulence in goverment. And once you get a ruling coalition going (that requres 60+ seats out of 120), it's often very difficult to maintain it for even half of the term, since every coalition memeber demands constant "bribing" (out of budget money) to stay in colation. And if the coalition breaks, you have short time to form another or must hold new election. All that makes persuing a consistent and focused policy next to impossible for any ruling party.


Now do you think israelis like their "pure" democratic parlament system? They hate it! I can't tell you how many times different people complained to me about inefficency of this system, and told me they wish they would have just 2 or 3 party system, like in the USA.


The bottom line is that you have to maintain a perspective when you are comparing different election/parlament system. Each one have some advantages and disadvantags. So having 2 party system have major advantages, as well as disadvantages.

P.S. Although I also wished there would be more choices for president. I mean, c'mon - are these people - Bush, Al Gore, Kerry - the best with what huge country can come up with for 8 years?!?

[PvK]

Originally posted by Tris:
...like I said - my choice is heard on Primetime news. Show me another, more effective way to represent my dissatisfaction with the system.

He did. Cast a ballot, but only vote for things you actually support, or against things you don't. If you don't like any of the choices, don't vote for any of them, but do cast the ballot.

That way you actively show disapproval. Most of the people who don't vote are probably doing so because they don't care for whatever reason, and there's no way to tell the difference between an outraged person who doesn't show up as a protest, or someone who's just too lazy or clueless or apathetic.

PvK

[november]

Looks like your theory is right. But of course there’s places in the US where the current 21% for Bush in your poll would be a scandal, say most college campuses. I would guess that the results, for faculty and students, would be less than 10% for Bush.

I’m an independent but I’m voting for Bush unless he screws up the war by politicizing it. The closest thing the Dems have to a hardliner on the war is Hilary.

I was a yellow-dog democrat until the Bill show, and the way it’s looking I may never vote for a dem again.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinkthank:
We, meaning US citizens about whom this poll is and the group a member of which I proudly be.

2, meaning those two only who receive official national funding (1$ per tax return, remember), and meaning those two with more than even slightly nominal membership in a house of representation.

Well actually any party that fronts a candidate gets that money. And thats only about a dozen out of the many many partys. So far they rarely try to put anyone up for presidency. Mostly they are active at city, county, state levels. But it has happened fairly often (nader, perot, buchanan)

---

Er - First, tinkthank - it's not $1 per tax return. At most it's 99.99 cents, because I for one check the box that says that no, one dollar from my taxes isn't to go to help one of two whores get into office.

Second : Nader didn't get any money. For a party to get any of that money, they have to have received at least 5% of the popular vote the previous election. So - Nader, who co-opted the Greens, didn't get the money. Buchanan, who raped, er, co-opted Perot's party, may have - I don't remember if they got 5% in 96.

Also - Bush didn't, and won't, be getting any of that money. Reason being that it winds up being "matching funds" for what the candidate spends, as long as they follow certain rules about their funding, ads, etc. Boy Bush turned down the money in 2000 so he wouldn't have any limitations - his oil, lumber, and other industrial patrons have already poured enough money into his pot that he doesn't need matching funds.

I take back what I said, about Cthulhu. If you're tired of picking the lesser of two evils - vote Bush.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by november:
I was a yellow-dog democrat until the Bill show, and the way it?s looking I may never vote for a dem again.

Y'know, I'm curious. Just what is it that Bill Clinton did that was so wrong? He screwed a woman. And he lied about it. Just like most married people would lie. He didn't ignore the constitution. He didn't get us into a screwed up war and screw it up 100 ways to Sunday.

He didn't fire only those people who told the public the truth. Whereas Bush fired Clarke, who said that Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. He fired Gen Shalashki(spelling is wrong), who said we'd need more than the handful of troops in Iraq that Rumsfeld and co insisted. He fired Lindsey, who told the truth about the likely cost of the war - that no, Iraq _wasn't_ going to fund its own reconstruction.

Clinton didn't lock people up without due process. His administration didn't make not-so-veiled threats that "people ought to be careful what they say", ignoring the 1st amendment. He didn't overrule and disregard his own scientific panels, as Bush has.

Mind you - I'm an atheist when it comes to politics, I didn't vote for Gore, and until Baby Bush, I wasn't a fan of Clinton. But again - what did Clinton do that turned you off the Democratic party?

Myself - I think both parties are "swive-me-mate" trollops; a few possible exceptions, such as McCain, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and a few other mavericks who buck their own party when they think the people are getting shafted by something their party wants.

[november]

*looks over both shoulders—is this OT?*

Don’t feel like rehashing all this. I thought his pool was interesting. I was a little surprised at the result.

[Stormbinder]

dp

[ May 10, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]