English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

And terms limited to 8 years. That would break up the old boys network and reintroduce real democracy. What do others think?

2007-05-21 05:43:37 · 13 answers · asked by pete the pirate 5 in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

I agree with Louis G, but I also agree and understand where you are coming from. it really sucks that every election (where i was old enough to vote, im 23) it was either democrat or republican. its like a dead end trap.

2007-05-21 05:49:16 · answer #1 · answered by Jahpson 5 · 1 0

the democracy in the united states is ranked as not very functional by "the economist" largely for 2 reasons -- a 2 party government (democracies are marked by multiple parties and the ease with which new parties can be introduced) and corrupt elections. the two party system is largely fueled by corporations pouring money into only two parties so a third party can not be introduced and the declining literacy rate in the united states. keep em dumb and they are much more likely to fall for lies spouted by a well groomed pleasantly toned person on the television. If you read andy warhols manifestos on pop culture they are not exactly what you would call pro-democracy. Even the popular 15 minutes of fame is a very dismal concept and was meant to be critique on our culture and not a sound bite in and of itself -- other than your 15 minutes what are you supposed to do with the rest of your life?

Anyway I am way off tangent -- back to democracy -- when you are running platforms on populist issues like abortion and gay marriage you can ignore more serious issues like declining economy and the current banking fiascos (the sub-prime mortgage fall out and printing money like its toilet paper, creditors charging in excess of 30% interest to their poorest debtors, etc etc etc), 55 million people without accessability to health care, 13 million people here working while their corporate sponsors don't pay taxes on them, etc etc etc -- fall to the side.

Unfortunately only being able to see the world as black and white is something engrained in the culture in the united states. Our Puritanical forefathers gave us the concepts of walk the straight and narrow or descend into hell. While that concept might be outdated the basic philosphy dominates our culture. If something isn't working we have the tendency to pragmatically swing the cultural boom 180 degrees the other direction. We don't know any other angles.

In short i don't see anything restoring the united states to a democracy but good luck with it.

2007-05-21 06:19:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

People have the right to create and join orginazations to make their voices heard. And through that decide who they want to nominate candidates to represent them. And you want to take away that right as well?

But of course, you'll say, "that's not what I mean." So? How do you propose candidates be selected? By people just deciding do run with no affiliation--everybody an independant? Then who pays for campaigns?

The answer is simple--special interests will then have complete control--via controllling the purs-strings--of who runs and who gets elected. You're "suggestion" isn't a cure for the "old boy's network--" it would simply give that network complete control of our political process, instead of the limited influence they have now.

You might as well skip the whole voting process and apportion seats in Congress to the Fortune 500 if you do that.

2007-05-21 05:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I like the idea of term limits. But, you are mistaken about "reintroducing " something that never existed in this country. We are , and have always been a democratic republic, not a democracy.

2007-05-21 05:49:53 · answer #4 · answered by booman17 7 · 0 0

Why do you propose legislation when voters can impose their will regarding the political parties? Isn't there enough law making going around? Can't we just let voters decide who they want to represent their best interests?

If we are to outlaw anything, I suggest it be the necessity for people to register for a party in order to vote. It has been proven that people are not as likely to listen to ALL candidates equally, once they have registered for a party. What we need is people who approach their democratic duty with open minds and listen to all views...so that they can make the best choice for themselves and the country...

2007-05-21 05:57:42 · answer #5 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0 0

The founding fathers originally proposed something simular. Too bad they didn't think about it further.

If you can't outlaw political parties as least remove all references to political party from the ballot.

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are both Democrats. So are both of my Senators. But my senators would seldom agree with Kennedy and Kerry. So who is the real Democrat?

2007-05-21 06:01:32 · answer #6 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0 0

I don't agree that political parties should be outlawed. I do, however, think we should have term limits for both houses of congress.

2007-05-21 05:48:58 · answer #7 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 1 0

Two apposing parties are a good thing. It keeps one side from going overboard with the way the nation is governed.
It gets rediculous sometimes, but that's because we're fallable humans.
Sometime we get a great statesman or President.

2007-05-21 05:53:14 · answer #8 · answered by Handy man 5 · 0 0

Change the eight years to six years only and have congressional elections every two years so as to replace one third of them at a time. Also give no retirement and no retirement benefits.

2007-05-21 06:28:22 · answer #9 · answered by tedk 1 · 1 0

I agree with the term limits, but don't take the right to assemble away.

2007-05-21 05:49:50 · answer #10 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers