Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).

As for the preaching to the extremes, they've only come to do that because of in-party candidate selection- caucuses or w/e. Who shows up for those? Extremists. Who do the extremists vote for? Extremist representatives. Who do the representatives pander to in order to just get on the ballot? Extremists.

-edit
ooh hoo, videos? I like videos.
Yep, explains it better than I.

[Max White]

I'm guessing we have all already seen this video? Yes? Good.

[Sheb]

I just read this piece, and it struck a chord. I know we've been pretending it's not, but gay marriage is changing the definition of marriage, and support for it is certainly correlated with wanting to destroy it (As shown by the large amount of people on this forum that would prefer ditching it in favor of civil unions for everyone, or replacing it with something more flexible).

[ChairmanPoo]

... that was sarcasm, right?

[Sheb]

No, I'm fairly in accord with that guy (Less so with the ending of his piece about bigamy being good because it strengthen the state). Gay marriage do change the definition of marriage, and once you change it, it does kinda open a slippery slope argument toward polyamourous marriage.

Not that this is a bad thing of course.

[Max White]

Let me tell you a story Sheb.
In Australia, up until 1962, indigenous Australians needed government approval to get married. Many protested on the basis that it would change the nature of marriage. These days the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to get married based on the color of your skin is appalling. Until 1966, women were sacked from any public service after marriage. Now the idea that you can fire a woman just because she got married is a travesty! Until 1976, a man was allowed to rape his wife as long as they were married. This is clearly morally bankrupt.

We keep on changing the nature of marriage, and every time people protest. And every time we do, a few years later we realize just how bigoted these people were. Will it change the nature of marriage? Yes, and for the best.

[Nadaka]

No, I'm fairly in accord with that guy (Less so with the ending of his piece about bigamy being good because it strengthen the state). Gay marriage do change the definition of marriage, and once you change it, it does kinda open a slippery slope argument toward polyamourous marriage.

Not that this is a bad thing of course.

Polyamory IS the traditional definition of marriage if you go back far enough. And besides that, the only thing that makes polygamy "bad" really is that it gives the ultra wealthy the opportunity to hoard yet another status symbol to the detriment of society. No offense intended to the women who would rather be a billionaires 300th wife than a poor mans first.

[freeformschooler]

Let me tell you a story Sheb.
In Australia, up until 1962, indigenous Australians needed government approval to get married. Many protested on the basis that it would change the nature of marriage. These days the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to get married based on the color of your skin is appalling. Until 1966, women were sacked from any public service after marriage. Now the idea that you can fire a woman just because she got married is a travesty! Until 1976, a man was allowed to rape his wife as long as they were married. This is clearly morally bankrupt.

We keep on changing the nature of marriage, and every time people protest. And every time we do, a few years later we realize just how bigoted these people were. Will it change the nature of marriage? Yes, and for the best.

Well said.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).

Read.

[Sheb]

To clarify, I'm not saying that changing the definition of marriage is a bad thing. I'm for it. I don't see why we should keep some old definition of anything if it makes people miserable.

My point (and the article I linked) was about the fact that there is some truth to the conservative  point that marriage is being changed and on a downward slope toward eventual destruction (at least the official, legal marriage, we're not talking about religious marriage here). Rather than dismiss it as conservative ranting, we should acknowledge it and embrace it. Yes we're changing marriage, yes we're wrecking the traditional version of marriage.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm of the opinion that there should be a number of representatives chosen from the general populace (akin to jury duty). They'd serve for periods of six months-one year and act as a curb to the ambitions of "professional" politicians.

[Pnx]

I'm of the opinion that there should be a number of representatives chosen from the general populace (akin to jury duty). They'd serve for periods of six months-one year and act as a curb to the ambitions of "professional" politicians.

Of course the one issue with that is that 1. you wind up with a lot of people who really don't want to do the job, and if you only pick the people that do want to do the job you haven't really improved on the system any except by making it extremely arbitrary (for example on social issues, you wind up with a government full of people that go one way for one term, then people that go the other way for the other term, your congress is now less reflective of the common ideologies of the people)

2. They're likely to go for very populist policies and unfortunately experience has told me what the majority of people think about how the government should be run, is actually a very bad idea when it comes to running a government. Most people just do not have any idea about how laws and policies are made, or how they should be made. This is already an issue with more classical democracy, the candidates voted into office are more likely to be "the one I wanted to have a beer with the most" rather than the one that would make the best statesman. But it would be very much worse in this system.

Professional statesmanship isn't a bad idea, you just to need to find ways to refine the selection process, breaking up the two party system would be a great start.

[kaijyuu]

Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.

[Devling]

The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.

[SalmonGod]

Professional statesmanship isn't a bad idea, you just to need to find ways to refine the selection process

Refining the selection process doesn't deal with the main problem with professional statesmanship:  it encourages corruption... for many reasons.  The least arguable reason is it creates a political class division, and an upper class, no matter what kind, will always act primarily in its own interests.  Someone who knows they're going to be permanently cycled out after a short term has much, much less incentive to needlessly increase the power of his position.  You also need to ensure there are ways to make career statesmen frequently answerable to the people who elected them.  When terms are too long and there's too much mobility (from congressman to lobbyist, for example), they tend to just do whatever they want after they've won the lying contest.  Being prone to deception is a problem with the selection process, but also the most unlikely angle of the issue to be successfully resolved.  It would be much more effective to deal with incentives to deceive or implement more reliable consequences.