|
Post by 23skidoo on Jan 10, 2008 8:09:44 GMT -5
Can someone explain the democratic process that your US of A is going through right now. And how the money features. I know I could get the truth from google but I'd rather get lies and statistics from you lot.
I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by asshole doctor™ on Jan 10, 2008 10:00:34 GMT -5
this is not spam. the US democratic process is.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Jan 10, 2008 11:23:49 GMT -5
Can someone explain the democratic process that your US of A is going through right now. And how the money features. I know I could get the truth from google but I'd rather get lies and statistics from you lot. I thank you. okay, every two years, we hold elections, and are offered the chance to change the membership of the entire house of representatives and 1/3 of the senate (they make the laws). The incumbent has a huge advantage, mainly because people around here don't like change. every four years, in addition to changing the house and senate, we get to elect a new president. the president isn't elected by simple majority, he needs to capture the majority in a given state, who then contributes a certain amount of "electoral votes" to a pool, whoever captures the most votes from this "electoral college" becomes president. Because they need to capture multiple states, they gotta scatter their political ads across many, many states, this costs tons of money. While we do have limits on how much presidents can raise from outside sources, they can spend from their own pockets pretty much endlessly...as such, our presidents are usually fairly wealthy. the president is essentially in charge of making the laws passed by congress legal, and has the ability to veto any law passed by congress. He's also in charge of the army and has the power to pick supreme court members, who determine whether a currently existing law is illegal or not. the office of the president is the most powerful political office in the world, and it's a shame more people don't get out and vote
|
|
|
Post by 23skidoo on Jan 10, 2008 11:52:06 GMT -5
perhaps this year will get a bigger turn out than most, what with a black man, a white woman and a religeous right that are turning their concerns to poverty and the enviroment rather than bashing on people who abort babies that would grow up to enter into gay marriage.
I hope they do, it is a mighty big job.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 11, 2008 10:13:59 GMT -5
Wait, so it's rich people that become presidents most of the time? That explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Prisonner Of Today on Jan 11, 2008 15:05:36 GMT -5
It's strange to think you didn't know that Magatsu. I just sort of assumed that's how it works everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by ImperialRedDragon on Jan 11, 2008 15:49:58 GMT -5
Technically, you don't need to be rich to run. But effectively, yeah, you have to. Campaigns cost a shitload of money, and there are a bunch of other reasons why you need to be loaded.
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 11, 2008 16:48:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure about how the running parties finance their campaigns here, but there tends to be very little commercials, at least on tv. It's more debates and such on public tv, which is more or less free for those who run, since the public channels have to watch the elections, debates and all that. From what I've understood it's more about your position in the party than how much money that you've got that decides if you become candidate or not here in Sweden. I was trying to comment the fact that it seems absurd to have the richest person as head of state, since the chance that the elected person will work based on his/her own situations is quite likely, I know I would. A rich person working in the interest of the rich just seems like a good way to fuck up thing for the rest of the population, but that's a bit exaggerated of course. Just because your rich doesn't make you bad, it just tends to make people think they're better than others. There, better Priz?
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Jan 11, 2008 18:12:09 GMT -5
If you think about it, it would almost be impossible to construct a system where attractive people didn't get an unfair advantage, and attractiveness is (from a sense of utility), a far less presidential quality than wealth. It's also way easier to just inherit. Hair is another one of those things that presidents just seem to have
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 11, 2008 20:47:31 GMT -5
I wonder what the Presidents stylist make?
So, a attractive and wealth candidate has better odds of becoming Presidents than a competent candidate? Now that's bad. That's worse than the Latest National Treasure even.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Jan 11, 2008 22:48:55 GMT -5
I wonder what the Presidents stylist make? So, a attractive and wealth candidate has better odds of becoming Presidents than a competent candidate? Now that's bad. That's worse than the Latest National Treasure even. first off, the latest national treasure movie was awesome. Sure, it's got gaping plot holes, glaring historical innacuracies, and cheesy lines, but so does indiana jones...now, Indy could kick gate's ass up and down the court, but that just makes it less good, not bad. "Competence" is something human beings are almost universally bad at judging. when flashed pictures, people will ascribe intelligence and "emotional depth", at the drop of a hat, to skinnier, darker-eyed, slightly-foreign looking younger men, and persist in believing it against all odds. I'm fairly certain a system where true competence is measured, and power is allocated appropriately, is absolutely impossible...especially since there are many VERY competent and popular people who will abuse they power they're given. this is precisely why many ancient cultures frown on democracy: it's nothing more than mob rule, you see. Far better (in their eyes) to allocate rule to a divinely appointed monarch or (better yet) someone who has the proven wisdom, education, and spirit to rule...of course, the "common folk" would never approve of such a brilliant ruler (they being mindless sheep, of course), but since when has their opinion counted for much. American Democracy has flourished in this age precisely because the majority does not have limitless power, and we operate under the premise that the average human being is a competent decision-maker. Granted: this produces a system where candidates are chosen by their looks and charisma, but this (in my mind), is far better than when candidates are chosen by their birthright or some system where the majority is viewed only as a dull-minded, backwards, reactionary mass. When you look back on history, you realize that every system is a democracy at the end of the day, the majority always get their way: they're either mislead into believing the ruler, they approve of what he does, or they violently depose him. Democracy is a nice shortcut because it eliminates a lot of the middlemen: the crap still rises to the top, but WE pick the crap, at the end of the day, people feel better, things can still get done, and there's much less bloody revolution
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 12, 2008 7:40:04 GMT -5
I usually view competence as having nothing to do with how a person looks. Sure, we tend to believe people with glasses to be intelligent, but that has nothing to do with reality. To see if someone is competent you just have to look at political experience, at least in this case. I agree that there is also a chance that whoever is elected based on competence could of course also abuse their power, but I think there is quite an easy way to prevent it, or at least lessen the chances of it. Though this requires a coalition government, which from what I know has never existed in the US. A coalition government of course consists of several political parties, which means that they all have to work together to accomplish their goals, and this should lessen the chances of power abuse. In your system I think a switch of power from the President to the Senate would be a good idea, though I'll be dammed if I know how that would be accomplished. Good points mostly, though I wouldn't agree that every political system is a democracy. After all, if the people lack the knowledge to grasp political concepts, there is hardly any chance of them approving of the system, or disproving it for that matter. The idea of Revolution must exist before it can be implemented, so in the oldest society's where there never was any Revolutions, did the people approve of their rulers? Or maybe they just didn't know better? I wouldn't call a society where people are mislead into believing a ruler a democracy though. Democracy can only exist when a majority grasps the concept of it, you might say. Which of course also means that if a majority does not grasp the concept of it, what then? Sure, there tends to be a view on right and wrong in most cultures, but in the western ones ours is that of the churches for the most part. Maybe we need a despot as our ruler until we have enough knowledge to make a revolution? What I do know is that I'm going to die unless I stop writing soon... I will never agree with you on National Treasure though
|
|
|
Post by 23skidoo on Jan 12, 2008 12:40:34 GMT -5
I've not seen National Treasure 2, but I'll watch it without my wife, who has taste, in a cinema that will cover my slight shame with darkness.
I feel sorry for the northern countries of europe, they have a society that Jean Luc Picard would be proud of but at present have not the clout to spread their great message.
Time, Magatsu, is on your side however. Power in the world has been slowly shifting westward, much like the GDA, for many a year. From Africa to South America to Asia to Europe to America to China and inevitably back to Sweden. Hang in there my nordic friend, the world will be yours before your great grandchildren pass!
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Jan 12, 2008 13:46:26 GMT -5
In your system I think a switch of power from the President to the Senate would be a good idea, though I'll be dammed if I know how that would be accomplished. this re-allocation of power would be especially troublesome. Historically, we've tried to keep the budget and the military separated and checked (Prez controls the armed forces, but congress declares war*, Congress assigns the budget but the prez vetoes it.), when both are unified in one font of power, even one composed of numerous elected officials, it's a straight road to corruption...well, it's a straight road to EVEN MORE corruption. You'd definitely want the armed forces under the control of one official with unquestioned authority, armed forces, especially in our day and age, need quick, fast-acting decision makers As for the question of fascism, it's been discussed, some call this outlook the "dangerous idea" of our time. (a "dangerous Idea" being something that is immesnly unpopular and anti-PC but will nevertheless be vindicated by history...see: heliocentrism, interracial dating). I'd suggest reading "the Glass Bees", an acid-trippy sort of sci-fi book written just after WWII, which along with being pro-fascist (I think), seems to predict robotics, genetic engineering, and the internet. In an age when people can lob bombs halfway around the world, and with our historic concern for human life (Ancient sumerians would routinely defeat the army, then De-feet the townspeople) it seems dumb to trust the reactionary "majority" with the future of the world, as they've proven themselves to be poor custodians of the future. I'm skeptical of that view, however. If your view is that the overwhelming majority of people are mindless sheep, you eventually have to come around to the realization that the one man you put in power is either one now, or is going to be at some point in the future. *We have found a neat little way to circumvent this in the past few decades, it's called "effectively breaking the law like scumbag weasels."
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jan 13, 2008 7:47:31 GMT -5
Ok i didnt read much of this but i did read that the rich people become president in america. In britain its kind of the opposite, the prime minister could make far more money being a lawyer or in business as the wage is low and these days its hard to cook the books.
What i dont understand is why people vote in the caucas polls or whatever they are called even though it doesnt mean anything
|
|