The British political system is basically functional while the American system is not

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I prefer the former. Something about a man in uniform inspires trust in me.

[^_^ 5,021]

strongman in this country? no thanks, he will probably end up being some RWN type.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

strongman in this country? no thanks, he will probably end up being some RWN type.

I'd like a LWN strongman. A really, really cute one.

[^_^ 5,021]

I'd like a LWN strongman. A really, really cute one.

American LWNs are pansies.

Edited May 24, 2011 by \

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

American LWNs are pansies.

I just swallowed poison oak. I thought you should know.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Trust should not be inspired by superficial appearance...nm.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

What does trust have to do with it? I just want a bossyboots telling me what to do who's also a total knockout.

Sounds awfully like what a lot of the guys on here say they have at home. I'm just extrapolating out onto a broader canvas.

[^_^ 5,021]

I just swallowed poison oak. I thought you should know.

You're more of a Ron Paul style libertarian. You guys are badass.

[Pooky 3,825]

Basically functional, but still corrupt. Look at what just happened with electoral reform.

The British voters rejected Electoral Reform soundly, by a little over a 2 to 1 majority. That's not corrupt, that's democracy in action.

Corrupt would have been promising a vote during the General Election, then reneging on that promise when said General Election returned your party with an overwhelming majority. Oh wait, that's what the Labour Party did.

First past the post works, because it usually delivers a stable government. Proportional representation does not, neither would the Alternative Vote system. And the British voters tend to like a stable government, whether they agree with its policies, or not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The British voters rejected Electoral Reform soundly, by a little over a 2 to 1 majority. That's not corrupt, that's democracy in action.

Corrupt would have been promising a vote during the General Election, then reneging on that promise when said General Election returned your party with an overwhelming majority. Oh wait, that's what the Labour Party did.

First past the post works, because it usually delivers a stable government. Proportional representation does not, neither would the Alternative Vote system. And the British voters tend to like a stable government, whether they agree with its policies, or not.

I don't know how closely you followed things around that election but there were a lot of lies and smears told about AV - both from the Tories and in the mainstream press (The Sun, for example, made out over a period of weeks that if you didn't want some Nazi regime in Britain that you should vote 'no' on AV).

If anything, it's the fault of the 'yes' camp for not making its platform clear enough for people to understand or to give them a reason why they should care about changing the voting system.

Edited May 25, 2011 by fishdude

[Pooky 3,825]

I don't know how closely you followed things around that election but there were a lot of lies and smears told about AV - both from the Tories and in the mainstream press (The Sun, for example, made out over a period of weeks that if you didn't want some Nazi regime in Britain that you should vote 'no' on AV).

If anything, it's the fault of the 'yes' camp for not making its platform clear enough for people to understand or to give them a reason why they should care about changing the voting system.

So, basically it's not corrupt, then.

The "yes" camp fell flat on its face, because the Conservatives certainly didn't want AV, neither did a good part of the Labour Party. Only the Lib-Dems and those in the Labour Party who fear not getting back into government again were in favour.

Despite what you might think, a 2 to 1 majority is not the result of corruption, or some smear campaign. Neither is it because all the "No" voters read The Sun (who actually reads The Sun, anyway?). A majority that large comes down to one thing - the voters thought the proposal was a bad one.

And look at it this way. The Conservative Party kept their word and brought it to a referendum, which is more than Labour ever did. The Lib-Dems knew their coalition partners would campaign against it and chose to roll the dice. That's politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, basically it's not corrupt, then.

The "yes" camp fell flat on its face, because the Conservatives certainly didn't want AV, neither did a good part of the Labour Party. Only the Lib-Dems and those in the Labour Party who fear not getting back into government again were in favour.

Despite what you might think, a 2 to 1 majority is not the result of corruption, or some smear campaign. Neither is it because all the "No" voters read The Sun (who actually reads The Sun, anyway?). A majority that large comes down to one thing - the voters thought the proposal was a bad one.

And look at it this way. The Conservative Party kept their word and brought it to a referendum, which is more than Labour ever did. The Lib-Dems knew their coalition partners would campaign against it and chose to roll the dice. That's politics.

Well we can 'assume' a lot of things - like assuming that politicians who get elected in safe seats do so because they are actually doing a good job. I think we both know that this isn't the case.

I'm wondering why my town, for instance, has had a Tory council for 30+ years despite the fact that they waste money hand over fist on high profile, hugely expensive traffic 'improvements' that have actually made traffic congestion worse, they are about to demolish the local swimming pool in the town centre (in favour of one several miles outside of town) and have pawned off the local library so that they can build a new (smaller one) which will be shared by both the public and by the University.

Plenty of people, it seems, are willing to vote against their own best interests.

[Pooky 3,825]

Well we can 'assume' a lot of things - like assuming that politicians who get elected in safe seats do so because they are actually doing a good job. I think we both know that this isn't the case.

I'm wondering why my town, for instance, has had a Tory council for 30+ years despite the fact that they waste money hand over fist on high profile, hugely expensive traffic 'improvements' that have actually made traffic congestion worse, they are about to demolish the local swimming pool in the town centre (in favour of one several miles outside of town) and have pawned off the local library so that they can build a new (smaller one) which will be shared by both the public and by the University.

Plenty of people, it seems, are willing to vote against their own best interests.

That's hardly corruption, though. I've worked for a Local Authority and it sounds about par for the course.

People have said in this forum that, if you don't like your representation, you always have recourse at the ballot box next time around. Problem is that voting Republican in CA Senate race is not going to get you anywhere, rather like voting Labour in Bournemouth.

[dalegg 143]

Screw checks and balances and divided power. We need a strongman in this country.

A strong smart man. I'm for it. The vast majority of Americans have no business being in the voting booth as far as I'm concerned. Until people can be trusted to stop voting for people like Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura I'm calling for a moratorium on democracy. In the interim Ross Perot will be in charge.

[Peikko 1,575]

What a lot of people do not understand is that the American system is designed NOT to be functional. It was not considered a good thing by the founders that the government be very efficient so they mucked it all up with checks and balances, divided powers, etc. In a country where the federal government is intended to have a very small role, there is no need for it to be very "functional"

It is a another reason the federal government should not have control of health care in this country.

Of course they did not want government to be dysfunctional. What poppycock. The checks and balances were designed to prevent power being concentrated in one place, that's a VERY, VERY different thing from ensuring it was dysfunctional. EVERY tax dollar that is paid into the coffers, both state and federal should be put to its best use, not disappear down a black hole of dysfunction. How very foolish a notion to add to many foolish notions you seem to love to pontificate upon.