Print

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

[Descan]

Plus, it'd get rid of battleground states, or at least open them up to all the states with a lot of people.

As it is, you have a few states that have an even split of votes AND a large number of electoral college votes, that the campaigns focus on. If you got rid of the electoral college, there'd be wider ranging campaigns going to states that are currently considered "in the bag", since a lot of those "in the bag" states are more 60/40 than 90/10, and would, in a straight popular vote, push the vote more one way or another.

I hope I made sense. >_>

[Putnam]

Living in eastern washington, where the majority of the population is republican, I understand.

[Devling]

I live in Oregon, where everyone is pretty much Democratic liberal!

Suckers.

[Putnam]

I live in Oregon, where everyone is pretty much Democratic liberal!

Suckers.

People say the same about Washington, if they live in the western area.

[Sheb]

I live in Belgium, where we have more than 2 parties.

Suckers.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I live in North Carolina.

Suckers.

[MonkeyHead]

Here in the UK our multiple parties are all as shit as each other.

I am such a sucker.

[Nadaka]

Yea? Well my Governor committed MASSIVE medicare fraud, and is only not in jail because they could only legally convict his shell corporation... before he got elected, mostly due to the senior vote.

[MonkeyHead]

Heh, as Winston Churchill said, the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 min chat with the average voter.

Mind you, he also said that democracy was the worst form of government, apart from all those other ones that are tried from time to time.

[Skyrunner]

Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office? The US has one to maximum two four-year periods, Korea has one five year period, and I'm sure some nation has longer, or more frequent periods.

Would the number of times you are in office significantly affect how you wield the power? In Korea, most presidents followed this course of action;

1. Diss what the previous president did (doesn't matter if said president is in your party / is your secod cousin)

2. Attempt and fail to fix what he did.

3. Make a bunch of half-hearted efforts at revolutionizing Korea.

4.

5. Just before your period ends, spring all your residents / party members who are in jail for crimes like bribery, touching taxpayer money, tax fraud, and other white-collar crimes, using your special presidential pardon.

6. After your period ends, go work at a big company, or live off all the money you stole and laundered in shell corporations.

It doesn't matter if you do the stealing money thing blatantly. The nation's media is usually on your side anyways, so all cries of foul play are swept away. >_>

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think the US needs more term limits. The president is limited to eight years (technically ten, but this is unlikely to happen), but representatives and senators can serve as many terms as they like, and most of them do. I also think that Supreme Court Justices should serve a single 20 year term.

Term limits risk flippant behavior in office and can mean good leaders only have 15 minutes of fame, but that's better than the power consolidating mini-cults of personality that tend to happen without them. The US had less of a problem on this front, but that's only because nobody was willing to defy Washington's implicit orders not to for 160 years, and it resulted in a constitutional amendment once someone finally did.

[Levi]

Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy.  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.

[10ebbor10]

Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy.  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.

You hope. If people get the job that don't want it, they'll be very quick to make a profit out of it. In fact, you'll probably end up with a shadow governement that rules through these randomly elected people, who while greatly compensated, don't wield any power.

[Levi]

Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy.  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.

You hope. If people get the job that don't want it, they'll be very quick to make a profit out of it. In fact, you'll probably end up with a shadow governement that rules through these randomly elected people, who while greatly compensated, don't wield any power.

That assumes most people are corrupt by default(which might be true).  I like to think if you choose 20 random people to lead your country, at least 15 of them won't be asshats. 

[Sheb]

No, but a lot of them would be uninformed (probably won't even know the intricacies of how the government work) and as such easily influenced.