Strange Famous

The only way for elections to be fair is for every vote to carry equal weight.

America needs a far stronger parliament and a weaker executive.

Every state should elect a given number of representatives, using the single transferable vote system, and depending on the population of that state. From these representatives, a President should be elected. The president is forbidden to pass any law without a majority vote from parliament to support it.

Serogois (sic? - not on purpose though!) - if you would like me to explain the STV system, I can provide you with links if necessary.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Endymon32

IF we did that then the communists wouldnt even have a chance, nor the liberals. I like what we have now as it opens up the system for the chance of opposing viewpoints.

rogue49

Umm...guy, you just rewrote our whole Constitution
and altered our government structure.

You are not just being Liberal, this is an extreme revolutionist tendency
to want all governments to cater to YOUR ideal structure.

Now while I can appreciate you giving your opinion in the "fairness" of things,
you also need to respect other nations government structures.

You seem very keen on forgiving EVERY other nations faults, sins & government,
just to be ONLY against the idea & ideals of the U.S.

This is a blinder mentality that is destructive, biased & vindictive.

We have set up our nation according to the basis of the Founding Fathers,
and have slowly adjusted this base according to significant needs.

Our government is a "Federal Republic", not a pure democracy, not a Parlimentary based one.

The Constitution is set the way it is for a reason,
it has had Amendments when necessary,
and it is VERY difficult to change for a reason.

The Founding Fathers didn't not trust the agendas or whims of ANYONE,
including themselves or the masses.
They set up the government to have checks & balances against other portions.
And it is difficult to change, because they wanted it NOT to be whimsical.

And while not perfect, it is setup so ALL are represented fairly.
Small vs. Large, Masses vs. Elite, Population vs. State,
Executive vs. Judicial vs. Legislative.
Even the electorial process is set up so smaller states are represented
(I don't just want just CA, NY, IL & TX deciding our fate)

We do have issues true, there are some abuses true,
but this has nothing to do with our government structure,
the issues are from money in the voting process, and only 2 parties currently available.
(BTW, this is not a constitutional crisis)

However, we COULD change the Constitution to ADD that there should be no money in govt.
or there "has to" be more parties.
But that is a debate that is going on at this moment.
I think it will solve itself with a few well placed laws and political momentum,
not a Constitutional Amendment.

So, please back off suggesting basically a revolution and whole Constitutional crisis.
The U.S.'s national structure is just fine.

Why don't you put those "forgiving" views that you have for everyone else,
and also apply them to one nation you seem to have something against.

I'd rather you be fair, than extreme.

Easytiger

Well said. I share your preference. I don't think we'll get our wish, though.

Strange Famous

I would like to tear apart the constitution of the UK darm more than that of America... the UK is no less undemocratic than America, and the spirits and hearts of people all over the "developed" world are dominated by Capital, not just America.

America is however the strongest nation in the world, even if they do not behave any worse than other western "democracies" the effect is greater.

There is a great deal of freedom (in amongst the murder of the natives by European settlers and conquistidors) in the history of America, but so much has been lost. The American people have a far more rebelious spirit than the craven subserviance to authority that many European's have...

The point is, I believe in communism, I believe in an entirely different world to the one we have today. Proportional representation is simply a means by which every vote counts as much as any other, it is irrelevant whether any constitution has worked or may still work... things must be turned on their heads and real change is needed, to your government, to mine, and to the economic structure.

If you have a system where if you live in a traditionally democrat state (say Oregon?) your vote counts less than if you live in a marginal state (say Florida)... thats not fair, and it has to be replaced... institutions, tradition, these are not factors I consider and they are not factors the forces of history shall consider, what we need is a ceaseless and bouncless culture of change, to challenge and knock down everything however sacrid, if it diminishes freedom, if supports exploitation or domination.

I agree in one point, and I want to correct this - and I will when I get back in this evening. Through my own error, I have allowed myself to become a charicture of what a communist is, feeding people the stock answers that they want, I have spent too much time involved defending or attacking individual ideas... I want to tell people what communism means to me, what the future I see is... people may or may not want to listen, but at least I can give people insight into my beliefs, into the reasons I say that so many existing things must be knocked down, must be trashed...

People may or may not agree with the ideals I have, or the possible of them being reality, but at least I can say what it means to me to be a communist.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

rogue49

While I don't object to communism as a idea,
I do know why it wouldn't work in the real world.

Communism is relying on the idea of total sharing & ideal.
This won't happen as we've seen again & again in history.
People are just too selfish & self-centered, each has their own agenda.

Capitalism takes advantage of this to harness the needs/desires of the masses vs. the resources of the market. (supply & demand)
With some very judicious use of regulation against those that would become TOO greedy or careless.

If there isn't a market for it, it won't survive
If the masses want it but the market isn't situated for it, it won't survive.
Despite the selfishness, the growth is there.

The U.S. government also was developed in consideration of this.
Our Founding Fathers has just dealt with Empires, autocracy, and a new floundering national government.
They understood they needed something that would work and represent all despite everyone's agendas and selfishness.
There are checks & balances and compromises built into the whole system.
They did NOT trust anyone, including each other or the people.
They needed a government that would work and continue despite people's base natures.
Vs. anyone, group, branch, party, entity, etc.
They all work against each other, for the growth of all.

Communism is an ideal that doesn't take into account human nature.
It is a system that will only work in small scale at best, if at all over a long period of time.

There is a reason why our system of government has survived without changing the basic structure for over 200 years.
Because we continue despite ourselves.
We have prepared for our worst.

Yes, there have been past problems, but the basic ideas & values have continued.
Representation is something that is not shared but fought for.
Freedom is not given but won.