OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

1) It's the only sample that we have. Post WW2 we see the plastic revolution, computers, television, etc etc. For so many reasons, the rest of history isn't even entirely relevant to the current situation, because life and the economy have both evolved tremendously, changing the dynamics of cash-flow forever.

2) Going back to your "chances of positive or negative events" argument, I can only state that given how many extenuating factors exist, the only thing that we can do, unless we can achieve full transparency from our government and our corporations, is assume that over time, the net effect of positive and negative factors upon the performance of the Presidency, has been roughly equal.

3) There is no "choice" of an ending date for the study, and it is not arbitrary. That year was chosen for one simple reason, it is the first year that all relevant factors was tracked by the Economic Report to the President. And as I postulated before, it's all that really matters to the here and now. 70 years ago for example, our economy was balanced around the concept of single income families. It was considered generally disreputable for a married woman to be working in America, rather than taking care of her children. The advent of so many of our modern trappings, and the rapid rise in apparent cost of living, has transformed our economy in ways that make historical dynamics inapplicable to the present state of the nation (and the world), thus invalidating data culled from another era. Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

Certainly not as intended. The type of conflict in Washington that was originally intended, has all but faded away. Our elected officials are no longer elected based upon their ability to debate, their ability to innovate, or their ability to help our government evolve. Our Federal Government was intended to change and grow over time, to meet the changing needs of the nation, and her people. But as politicians perfected spin, and their ability to manipulate people into voting for charisma, rather than for integrity and courage - as the focus was taken away from serious national concerns, and placed upon petty social issues - we failed ourselves, and our government failed us.

Both parties have failed us. Just, the Republican party has managed to fail us just a bit more.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.

Just to stir a little , but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

Just to stir a little , but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it. For example, Australia was largely a penal colony. Britain itself had little dealings with most of the landmass, but in absence of a powerful and organized governing body, they "claimed" the entirety. The irony here is that this did not even begin to occur until America established independence. That is to say, while the map shows most of North America, as well as Australia as being owned by Great Britain, Britain did not own both at the same time. I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure.


As to your point about how our system works - I totally agree. I will not balk at the implication that our political system is broken. I think we'd be in much better shape with 30 parties running, and candidates being victorious with 10% of the vote (though for President I would think 2 rounds of voting would be in order, the first narrowing to 3 candidates, then everyone voting again - something like that, not married to it).

Personally I believe that as far as the Senate goes, that on the state level many more representatives should be elected - but with a very meager salary, and little actual responsibilities. Their responsibility would be mainly to raise awareness in their particular district to the issues at hand, and to collect votes, which they would then forward on a 1:1 basis to the Federal level.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

I sort of hinted at that in my post. And IIRC a lot of the public favour bit was arranged by throwing circuses, providing food and having lots of public holidays. Elections were often bought through family wealth, or just won on the basis of family reputation.

It's not exactly as if various wealthy families in the States don't get more than their fair share of political power, after all. That's getting close to aristocracy if you ask me.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it.

Here's a (arbitrarily chosen) map from 1897, showing British territories at that point only. Is that slightly clearer? As per most empires, governors and garrisons were appointed to claimed territories. Other local governmental and social structures were left mostly intact. It's what Alexander and Rome did, so you can hardly quibble on that point.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

For example, Australia was largely a penal colony.

For the sake of being argumentative: At the point the map linked above was made, transportation had been discontinued for 45 years. Convict labour had ended 30 years previously. Australia was being mined for gold and opals (and other minerals), forested for hardwoods, and probably several other things I don't know about.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure.

How about gold and diamond mining, rare hardwoods and other natural resources? Africa was something of a feeding trough at the time, and European nations were all pushing for their share of it. There was hardly an absence of claimants for African land - it's very likely one of the reasons modern African governments don't like non-African nations interfering with their political problems. And of course, for an empire with a heavy reliance on sea trade and naval power there's a very good reason to keep hold of and use sea ports and islands. Britain had a strong tendency to go to war rather than lose territory, which is why their claims were taken seriously.