Do You Feel Safer?

[Peikko 1,575]

You have a name of a modern day democracy that has no checks and balances, and a democracy anywhere that has an EB with as much power as the US?

Yeah, I would really like to see Obama roll back these powers and I would also like to see a change in the constitution to prevent anything like that happening again.

In my opinion, there is a lot that requires reform, including the presidential electoral process, or alternatively the roll of the president.

In fact, personally I think the whole thing has become overly bureaucratic and unwieldy with politicians persuing personal agendas all too often.

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

really? i have lots of faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers for putting the electoral system in place. are you still peeved about that revolutionary war, is that why you're so disgruntled?

So then you do think not only that Obama is the is the best president we could have right now but presumably also that you believe the Democrats should have the majority in the House and the Senate and that being the case it is Obama's and the rest of the majority partie's elected duty to implement the policies that they were elected on?

if you want to believe that, feel free.

[mawilson 2,133]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Whatever you want? No, but pursue policies you were elected on, surely that's expected, no? No democracy that I know of allows the elected majority to do exactly what they wish and all deomcracy's have checks and balances. Very few democracies allow one person to have as much power as an American President.

At least American Presidents are elected into office. No-one elected Gordon Brown.

[Peikko 1,575]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

really? i have lots of faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers for putting the electoral system in place. are you still peeved about that revolutionary war, is that why you're so disgruntled?

So then you do think not only that Obama is the is the best president we could have right now but presumably also that you believe the Democrats should have the majority in the House and the Senate and that being the case it is Obama's and the rest of the majority partie's elected duty to implement the policies that they were elected on?

if you want to believe that, feel free.

I don't need your permission to believe whatever I believe Charles - but, there is conflict in the things you profess to believe. Perhaps you have faith in the founding fathers with the electoral system BECAUSE it's faulty and is not capable of producing the best president?

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

really? i have lots of faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers for putting the electoral system in place. are you still peeved about that revolutionary war, is that why you're so disgruntled?

So then you do think not only that Obama is the is the best president we could have right now but presumably also that you believe the Democrats should have the majority in the House and the Senate and that being the case it is Obama's and the rest of the majority partie's elected duty to implement the policies that they were elected on?

if you want to believe that, feel free.

I don't need your permission to believe whatever I believe Charles - but, there is conflict in the things you profess to believe. Perhaps you have faith in the founding fathers with the electoral system BECAUSE it's faulty and is not capable of producing the best president?

you're mistaking the "best president" for whoever wins the election.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not mistaking anything. A good system of election would necessarily lead to the best candidate winning or at least the perception that the best candidate won - this system does not seem to do that.

[mawilson 2,133]

You have a name of a modern day democracy that has no checks and balances, and a democracy anywhere that has an EB with as much power as the US?

The UK?

The monarch is the Head of the Executive. The Prime Minister is second in command.

The monarch has the power to fire the Prime Minister. The monarch also has the power

to veto a bill in which case it would not become law.

In the US, a law must pass both upper and lower houses. In the UK, since the

Parliament Act 1911, the House of Lords cannot block legislation. If a bill passes the

Commons three times, it becomes law even if rejected by the Lords.

The Attorney-General appoints the judges, and is usually an MP and often a Minister.

The separation of powers is fuzzy at best.

I am not mistaking anything. A good system of election would necessarily lead to the best candidate winning or at least the perception that the best candidate won - this system does not seem to do that.

Is Gordon Brown the best Prime Minister? No-one elected him.

[Peikko 1,575]

I love queenie

You have a name of a modern day democracy that has no checks and balances, and a democracy anywhere that has an EB with as much power as the US?

The UK?

The monarch is the Head of the Executive. The Prime Minister is second in command.

The monarch has the power to fire the Prime Minister. The monarch also has the power

to veto a bill in which case it would not become law.

In the US, a law must pass both upper and lower houses. In the UK, since the

Parliament Act 1911, the House of Lords cannot block legislation. If a bill passes the

Commons three times, it becomes law even if rejected by the Lords.

The Attorney-General appoints the judges, and is usually an MP and often a Minister.

The separation of powers is fuzzy at best.

I am not mistaking anything. A good system of election would necessarily lead to the best candidate winning or at least the perception that the best candidate won - this system does not seem to do that.

Is Gordon Brown the best Prime Minister? No-one elected him.

How is that relevant?

[The_Dude 1,142]

I love queenie

There is only one Queen

[Peikko 1,575]

That's true too

[mawilson 2,133]

I am not mistaking anything. A good system of election would necessarily lead to the best candidate winning or at least the perception that the best candidate won - this system does not seem to do that.

Is Gordon Brown the best Prime Minister? No-one elected him.

How is that relevant?

You claimed that other democracies where the EB doesn't have as much power as the US

have better systems of election.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Sniff Sniff, now I feel sad. I need to go out to my car and bust out the old Queen CD's.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not mistaking anything. A good system of election would necessarily lead to the best candidate winning or at least the perception that the best candidate won - this system does not seem to do that.

Is Gordon Brown the best Prime Minister? No-one elected him.

How is that relevant?

You claimed that other democracies where the EB doesn't have as much power as the US

have better systems of election.

I did? You seem to have taken what I said at least two steps beyond anything I have actually said/claimed.

I have most certainly not made any claims as to how good or not the UK system is compared to the US system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Britain's parliamentary system is potentially dodgy because we don't have an established, formalised constitution. There is a document from the 1600's that established, for instance, a right to bear arms but it was never enshrined into the political system after the monarchy was deposed.

It dubious I think that we don't have term limits, only a general understanding that PMs should spend no more than 10 years in office.

Of course that Thatcher had to get the boot, rather than resign of her own volition speaks volumes about how well the system works should a less than scrupulous politician get in. We have our fair share of Michael Howard's and Peter Mandelson's, I guess we're lucky that we don't have an equivalent to that crook - Silvio Berlusconi.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I have most certainly not made any claims as to how good or not the UK system is compared to the US system.

So which system were you referring to in "I am just used to a system where"....

You're from the UK so we all simply assumed that's the system you were used to.

... I am just used to a system where leaders go through the ranks of having to be members of parliament, then cabinet ministers before they are even considered leader material. *shakes head*