A gang of outlaws at the helms

Is it, though? In the Republican party, you have so many neo-cons who are going to thwart yor attempts. That is what has been happening to Ron Paul for many years. At least with starting a new party, you know where you stand and where the people around you stand. I certainly agree that it would be impracticle to try and rid ourselves of parties, especially when there will always be partisan politics due to disagreements. I just mean that it all seems to uneccessary and wish that it could change. That reminds me, how do you feel about capping the amount of money can be made in campaign donations? I'm a little torn on this. On the one hand I don't feel that principally you should be able to limit the amount of campaign donations, because why should it be the government's right to impose on the charity of free people?Yet we also know that campaign donations win elections. Lobbyists know this, as we saw with Karl "The Architect" Rove. Sure, it's all about strategy, but one cannot create power without money backing it.I'm torn on that debate, as I see pro's and con's on both sides.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

That's one of the reasons I see more opporunity in the Democratic Party than the Republican one. However, I would not count out the Republican Party quite yet. If they lose more ground during this midterm election (and I'm not even going to try and predict if they will or not), they'll be relegated to almost a regional party. If they want to regroup and expand, they'll need to appeal to a broader base, meaning they'll have to ditch the neocons. Another possibility would be the moderate Republicans finally getting fed up with the Neocons controlling the party, and leaving en mass. If that happens, we may find a third party, like the Libertarians, absorbing many of them and replacing the Republican Party like the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.The only thing is, in this day and age, it seems all but impossible to imagine the Republican Party actually dissolving so much. People who have been Republican for their whole lives, whose parents were Republicans, will find it hard to leave that identity behind, even if the party no longer stands for the things they remember it standing for. Well, I don't believe money counts as speech, whatever the Supreme Court says. I think there should be caps on how much an individual or corporation can donate, but there shouldn't be a limit on how much a person could raise.I'm also a fan of Public Financing, but I don't see it happening any time soon. If we get rid of direct fund-raising all together, and give every serious candidate (however we determine that) the same amount of "ad space" in newspapers, on TV ads, and on radio, we'll see more people who can compete, and let more ideas be heard.The issue is, how do we stop internet advertising and advocacy groups from picking up the donation slack and flodding the airwaves on their own? I'm worried this is a genie that can't be put back.

The problem is not a party system per se. Parties allow a level of organization, funding, and cooperation that simply isn't available to a purely independant system. Not to mention the fact that people of similar views will tend to congregate together in political debates - essencially the formation of parties is inevitable.The problem is a two-party, all-or-nothing approach.Americans have a tendency to view American politics in a vacuum, and completely ignore the solutions other nations have used to combat the same problems.We don't technically have a two-party system, but for all practical concerns we do. Other parties tend to serve more to divide the votes of an ideologically similar party and ensure its defeat (ie, the Greens divide the Democratic vote and in the end serve mainly to help gain Republican victories). A two party system is flawed from the outset - not many people fit perfectly, or even relatively well with either party. It becomes the choice of the lesser of two evils for many (most?) Americans. Further, it serves to more harshly polarize the Us vs Them dynamic.The all-or-nothing approach also works against us. In the US, if the Republican wins 46% of the vote, the Democrat wins 40%, and the remaining 14% is split amongst a few insignificant alternative parties, the Republican wins. In effect, 54% of the voters will not have their views represented.Some other countries have a very different way of handling election. In the above example, we could have 64% of the available seats be given to Republicans, 40% of the available seats given to Democrats, and the remaining 14% split proportionally according to the votes for the alternative parties. In effect, everyone is represented. This system discourages polarized 2-party situations because you no longer need to vote so much for the lesser evil. Votes for the Greens, the Independents, the Libertarians, etc are no longer wasted votes that serve primarily to weaken an ideologically distinct but similar party in favor of one you outright oppose. The ideas of the alternative parties now have an outlet in governing bodies. Us vs Them dynamics are unavoidable, but they need not be so polarized.The problem is that this requires a major change in American political thinking...and for all of Obama's words, Americans don't like change very much.

I know, tell me about it. I've seen it firsthand. I've been trying to shift friend's and family away from siding with Republicans or Democrats on the basis of them alleging to be either. Makes about as much sense as professing to be a Christian while worshipping Satan. Saying it doesn't make it so. Seems reasonable. Yeah and there are always the people out there who find ways to bend the rules while not directly breaking them.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yup... Unfortunately too many people go that route. Some people would rather see Bush or Obama fail just so they could snidely say "I told you so," even at the risk of damning America.I didn't vote for Obama (nor McCain) but I'll be damned if I hope for him to fail. This is why I think it should come down to popular vote versus electoral college. Huh... Very interesting. Simplistic, yet elegant.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I'd look into some European countries' systems then, since this is basically the system we have here (at least, some countries do). As long as you get a minimum number of votes, your party gets a seat in the parliament, even if it is only enough for 1 seat. This means we need to form coalition governments made up out of two or three different parties.The drawback of this is of course that parties need to compromise their policies, and the danger of "weak" government is there. {ABE} for more info on my countries system (where you can also see the how the parliament is divided right now): House of Representatives (Netherlands) - WikipediaEdited by Huntard, : added {ABE} bit

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

And tried-and-tested in other countries, besides. And wholly impossible to do in the US.American pride is unfortunately a virtually impenetrable barrier. We don't ever even bother to consider that someone else's solution might be more effective than our own. America! Fuck yeah!Nearly all political debates in America happen with global blinders. We don;t care what the rest of the world thinks. We dont care what teh rest of teh world does. America is Number One, everybody else is inferior. We're the BEST, even if we have a lower standard of living. It doesn't matter if our education sucks, we're the BEST! The only first-world nation that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare? That's cause we're BETTER! SLAVERY IS FREEDOM! GOD'S COUNTRY! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!...Whenever I think about American politics, I with it was easier for me to emigrate. The idiots are holding us back from so much. We have so many resources, so much national wealth, and somehow we can;t even make sure that rape victims don;thave to pay for a rape kit, that you won't have to file for bankruptcy just because you got sick, and we worship the Constitution like it's a freaking deity.I want to move to Canada, or the Netherlands. Maybe Scandinavia. Too bad I can't.

You're gonna find fuckwads wherever you go, but, yes, there is an incaluculable number of douchers in the US. Why not? Too many ties here?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

That is a significant drawback. Has the Netherlands encountered this problem before?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Compromise? All the time. "Weak" government, not really, though most people now are complaining about the current administrations "lack of action", it really isn't that bad. Most people are idiots anyway, and couldn't run a country if their life depended on it. It's why they say they're gonna vote for Wilders (don't know if you;ve heard of him, else here is some info, he's basically shouting about nobody listens to the people any more, and how dangerous Islam is) in the polls. He's a clever politician and a good debater, with some catchy soundbites. This attracts people because, basically, they're idiots.The point is of course that if you 100% agree with a party's standpoint, be prepared to see it watered down when they form a government, because they will have to compromise.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

It's impossible to do for many reasons. One being, the people in power are not likely to change the route to power because, obviously, the current one works for them.Secondly, it would be very difficult to change the Senate to work with a proportional representation since each state gets two senators, we'd be left with two parties anyway. It may work in the House, but to do that, we'd have to remove congressional districts and have each congressional vote statewide. This may work, but it would fundamentally change the entire philosophy behind our country's set-up. I'm not saying our country shouldn't change it's philosophy if we find the one we're using isn't as good as it could be, but we're just back to point 1 above.Thirdly, as you say, we have the Constitution worshippers who don't want it to be changed, whether it was supposed to change or not. They're conservative in the strict sense, they don't want things to change, they want to keep the status quo.Fourthly, if all the above sentiments were overcome, we'd basically have to have an entirely new Consitutional Convention. We'd have to draft almost an entirely new document, and then we'd have to have a way to make sure we're representing the will and the wellfare of the populace as a whole. With the sheer size of this country, that's impractical at best. European countries are smaller, making it easier for people on the East side and the west side to have similar issues and problems that need to be solved, but a rancher in Montana, a New Yorker, and a dairy farmer in the midwest all have different needs, problems and solutions that are going to impede on the needs and solutions of the other areas.

Close. I don't want to be specific because it's personal, but someone close to me would be unable to immigrate to any of the countries on the top of our lists.

Exactly - it would involve a full reconstruction of teh legislative branch, and that's just not going to happen.We have had other parties in teh US before. Unfortunately, it's far too tempting to join with an ideologically similar party for the additional financial and personnel resources rather than continue as a distinct party of your own. The Republicans and Democrats each have many factions, and taken individually it's almost hard to believe they're technically part of the same political party. They remain together because it's easier to get someone they hate less into power this way. And the politicians continue it because it gives them greater resources in money and influence...which is the whole point for them anyway, isn't it?Just look at Joe Lieberman (henceforth referred to as "Lieberdouche"). The man was a "Democrat" for years...until he eventually lost a primary election because he doesn't represent the Democrats in CT with his voting patterns. Instead of backing down, he ran as an "Independent Democrat" or some such nonsnese, and basically got re-elected on name recognition. He still technically caucuses with the Dems, but votes with the rightest of the right-wing Republicans the vast majority of the time, and even spoke at the Republican National Convention.I'm sure some of our representatives are honest people who just want to do the best job they can for their constituents (cynicism temporarily removed in favor of blind optimism). But power does what power does, and when push comes to shove a lot of politicians couldn't care less about the country - they just want to get re-elected and maintain/increase their own influence and wealth.And since the legislature would need to approve any Constitutional changes...well, that's jsut not going to happen.

True, but I still maintain that it's easier to shift a party closer to alignment with most of the country than it is to start a new party from scratch. I would love to have a multiple party system, and I think it could be done given enough time, but it's faster to make a current party shift. It's been done before, and it will probably happen to the Republicans soon.

It's been happening. The Repubs of 1980 are not the Repubs of today, however many of them worship Reagan as the Second Coming. Ideological shift is a continuous process that never really stops. Remember, way back, the Republicans were the liberals who freed the slaves (Lincoln). Shift to that degree obviously requires a LOT of time, but noticeable changes can and do occur in the timespan of 1-3 election cycles.Today's Republicans are an unholy chimera of religious fundamentalists, gun rights activists, military supporters, isolationists, Big Business, old people, and others, some of which can overlap and some which do not.Today's Democrats are a similarly grisly fusion of pacifists, progressive liberals, minority rights activists, and Big Business.Note that, in several cases, the factions within a party are directly opposed.Note also that, to any nation outside of the US, the Democrats are conservative, and the Republicans are downright reactionary.To somewhat tie this back into the topic, I find it interesting that, for all of the rightwing opposition as if he were some paragon of Liberal Might come to topple everything conservative...Obama is actually very centrist, much like Clinton was (though Clinton, I think, may have been a bit farther right - he supported bank deregulation and other policies that are most definitely not liberal or even remotely centrist). Obama's most "liberal" policies are actually very benign - he's not even pushing AT ALL for single-payer universal healthcare, something that only the US can even consider to be a "liberal" idea.Somehow our political compass has been thrown completely out of whack. If the Repubs want to see real liberalism...well, that's another thread.