More corporate opression in America.

[Brian Ellis]

Well, it's OK if they don't inhale, isn't it?

[Wombat]

Originally posted by az
Wombat, KvH: Then you should start voting for some third party. Nothing will happen if no one starts doing that, and it will always remain a two party system. And if the two major parties are so similar anyway, it wouldn't hurt not voting for either of them (so the "voting for the lesser evil" argument doesn't work here).

Why vote for a third party? We don't have a system like a lot of European countries, where the % of the vote determines the % of Parliament, or something.

Also, our two major parties have been able to screw the others. The last debate of the 2000 election was held at my school. The guards were instructed to turn Nader away at the door! He wasn't even allowed to attend the debate as a spectator.

[az]

Well, in order to get a third party above a certain point of votes (for media interest, etc.), some people HAVE to be "early adopters", even if it doesn't change anything in the next two elections because of your very fair voting system which ensures the big partys stay big and the small ones stay small. When people start noticing "hey, there's a third party that MIGHT stand a chance of winning ONE voting district" they may decide to vote for that one - which they wanted to do for long time, but saw no chance for the party.

We also have two major parties here in germany, with the greens a distant (but safe) third. But some years ago, nobody would have given them a chance, and if people had then NOT voted for them because they'd have no chance anyway, they'd STILL not be in parliament (they're forming the ruling coalition now with the social democrats). SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO START IT, OR NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

AZ

[Wombat]

It doesn't matter who starts it. Unless 50% of a voting district votes for a 3rd party, they get NOTHING. Also, if you vote for a 3rd party, taking your vote from your "least hated" main party is essentially voting for the "most hated"

[az]

I do realize that - but it'll never change unless the voting system changes, which I can't see happening as long as one of the two major parties is ruling. But maybe if a third party gets enogh media coverage simply by being relatively near to winning a district, I'm sure many people would vote for it, as it seems many people are looking for an alternative.

AZ

[KvHagedorn]

When the second amendment was written (you know, the one you all hate so much), I believe one of the reasons for it was because the framers of the constitution forsaw that the government might become tyrranical at some point in the future and ANOTHER revolution would be necessary. Well, a hell of a lot of good a deer rifle and a .45 would do against a tank and a bunch of guided missles! The citizenry does not have access to the weapons that would allow such a revolution to take place, and even if it did, we are so fragmented by racial and cultural divisions that there is no way we could act as one in such a case. That's one reason the government has always been for immigration: divide and conquer.

[bsdgeek]

Yes, this has been all over the local news for a few months. I had honestly expected Rx depot to win, shows what I know. It's really getting quite ridiculous.

[UtwigMU]

The problem is in voting system:

USA, UK = Majority system.

Country divided in equal units based on population.

Candidate who wins most votes in certain unit goes to second round.

Variations: 2-round - If none of candidates has more than 50%, top 2 go into scond round.

In USA it's 1-round system. So generally voting for 3d party candidates only results in strenghtening other party.

For instance I read of expample where results for candidates were (approximately): rep.:40% dem.: 35, 3d party.: 25.

If there would be second round between top 2 from first round the people who voted for 3d party (it was some center-left party, I don't remember) would have proabably voted for democrates.

Pros:
- you know which you vote for
- tends to produce 2-3 center-left to center-right parties
- stable goverment (1 party generally has enough representatives to carry out mandate)

Cons:
- favours big parties
- minority can win
- produces 1 corrupt left and 1 corrupt right party - they know they'll still be represented, no matter what they do

On the other extreme is proportional system:
X% of votes equals X% seats in parliament. There's generally 3-5% margin for entry, which generally prevents extremist parties from becoming members

pros:
- proportional representation
- more parties representing different groups
- party can be voted out of parliament if it screws up too much

cons:
- unstable coalitions (in some countries - Italy is a prime example)
- one doesn't vote for people but for parties so they can pick the list of people who are on ballots

There are variants:
Here ve have a proportional system with elements of majority system - if candidate gets 50 or more percent in his county, he/she automatically gets ellected. Rest of the 90 seats are filled with members of parties according to percentage of votes with 3% margin for party to enter parliament.

Candidate can be proposed by registered political party or by signatures of 100 voters.

Every 18+ citizen gets written invitation to elections and doesn't need to register. Invitation or ID is required to be given a ballot.

But we still have left and right block and elections are always choosing lesser evil IMO.

As for USA there already is a tendency to reducing rights of people (from left and right - I personally support 2nd Amandment) and I think following will occur:

economic growth, social security, high employment - pick two

Since jobs are being exported, social security will diminish, that will require stronger goverment to protect interests of corporations and keep social rights at bay. KvH's post is one example.

Since USA will need to wage limited local theatre wars in order to preserve status of superpower which gives economic benefits: more military industry, less civil rights

Euro is looming, but I expect it to be more long term problem. Bigger problem is IMO capital excaping to EU and other places and if interest picks up and real-estate dept baloon bursts - Japan scenario.

Manny people view WTC being exploited for reduction of civil rights - convergence of secret services is outright dangerous, even dictator regimes tend to have 3 or more secret services (internal, foreign and military) watching over each other.

Moore and guns control is strike from the left - voiding 2nd amandement which will rob people of ability to revolutionize.

After grip will be tightened and USA will feel threatened from abroad it won't take long for someone capable (not in this or next mandate - gradual transition) of taking over - pre WW2 Germany example.

[SpiralDragon]

in short.... think of the USA as the charachter in a monodrama where the USA is Judge, Jury, Executior and the Suspect being tried at the same time .....

[The Rock]

That drug thing just proves that Americans (corporately) will do anything for money, even if it means letting some of their own citizens die. I can only imagine, when we finally cure cancer or AIDS, how much the drug will cost in the USA. Only the rich will get cured.

[Dilitante1]

Unfortunately, I suspect like in the movie Johnny Mnemonic, the pharmacutical companies KNOW how to cure some issues BUT wont due to the loss of income for treating the issue.

There are some who claim that medicines from out of the country are not made to FDA standards in this country and unsafe for us. most likely the pharmacutical companies to scare people from trying to purchase them

as for our voting system:

remember a pro wrestler is now the governor of Montana
anything can happen IF you win the hearts of the people

[SpiralDragon]

ethics..... tsk... tsk

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
ethics..... tsk... tsk

With all the bashing of religion going on nowadays, things can only get worse in this arena.