something1990 wrote:
If everyone just focused on what's best for the people and not what's best for the party, we would all be better off. It would be one less thing dividing us.
People will always challenge the current leaders with "I could make the world better than he can" statements. Division among a unified body is different and sometimes more dangerous than division among respective groups.
something1990 wrote:
If everyone just focused on what's best for the people and not what's best for the party, we would all be better off. It would be one less thing dividing us.
no, that has absolutely no chance of ever working. It requires a major, and impossible, assumption: That people ignore the alure of money, profits, and power. The everyone shares thing only works when there is nothing to be gained or lost (for example, the free software in the *nix community)
Instead, a multi-party BALANCED system is much better. Each side counters out the other, and the net result helps the people without requiring honest polititions.
Yeah it's just wishful thinking. Oh well.
something1990 wrote:
Yeah it's just wishful thinking. Oh well.
and without dreaming we would be back in the stone age wondering why it hurts to drop a rock on your foot.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Instead, a multi-party BALANCED system is much better. Each side counters out the other, and the net result helps the people without requiring honest polititions.
Often times this doesn't work. Case and point abortion. When democrats had control of the Supreme Court abortion was legal, now that republicans have control, it's likely that abortion will once again become illegal. I doubt that the public has changed its mind on the issue (I'm not saying either way; I'm aware that there are supporters and anti-supporters), but their representation in government sure has. My point is that a bi party system often ends up in stalemate, with one side in direct contrast to the other. It would be nice if we actually had a multi-party system. Then, perhaps, the third party could create comprimise instead of the virtual stalemate that has been going back and forth in the government for far too long. True, there are many parties now, but I'd like to see more substantial gains by the other, smaller parties.
Party system=not always good. Example: When Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was being reviewed, the reviewers ask questions to see how he would vote and if his statements were in line with their party's ideals, not if he could be impartial. However, it does to an extent prevent totalitarianism.
Kuro wrote:
Party system=not always good. Example: When Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was being reviewed, the reviewers ask questions to see how he would vote and if his statements were in line with their party's ideals, not if he could be impartial. However, it does to an extent prevent totalitarianism.
EXACTLY! Thats my entire point. With multiple (aka, more than one) major parties fighting for control, they will counter out like a balance over time.
Too many parties == nothing gets done as no one ever gets control
One party == unbalance, unrepresentative of the people
The key is to get it somewhere in between
I say either way, it's not split right. Both sides have half of what is good and the other half is just plain junk. They need to get together and actually get something done using the good parts of each party. Or, you know, they could get something done to begin with.
Parties split by "geographical discriminations" isn't good either. If you don't think we have geographically split parties, then take a look at an electoral map of the US.
Chipmaster wrote:
Parties split by "geographical discriminations" isn't good either. If you don't think we have geographically split parties, then take a look at an electoral map of the US.
You DO realize thats how the party system STARTED here, right? The original parties were mainly geographically based, not beliefs/idea based. So it is only natural that some remnants of this stay around (especially since it was a north/south division on slavery, and that was the key difference between the republicans and the democrats - reinforcing the geographical divisions that already existed)
Exactly. My point was that this is a bad thing though, as it seems to split the nation into two parts (less so now then say during the civil war, but it's still present). I understand that's how it started, it's just that I didn't want to have to prove to anyone that this was the case, so I came up with a quick proof instead of your longer, but more explanatory comment.
Strategic laziness.
Does anyone besides me find it somewhat amusing that we all get so vocal and inflamed about idiots in the calc community, yet are not near as passionate when we discuss something that might be relevant later?
If it's not relevant to us at the moment, we wouldn't get all worked up over it. Later when it is relevant we will have the same reaction.
Kuro wrote:
Strategic laziness.
Does anyone besides me find it somewhat amusing that we all get so vocal and inflamed about idiots in the calc community, yet are not near as passionate when we discuss something that might be relevant later?
Nope. The difference is that I am a part of the calc community (albeit a small part) but NOT of the U.S. voting community (yet)
something1990 wrote:
If it's not relevant to us at the moment, we wouldn't get all worked up over it. Later when it is relevant we will have the same reaction.
Hopefully not. 
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
