A voyage of political self discovery, and whatever else I feel like talking about.
Here's a summary of a thread from another blog I've been commenting on. It pretty much sums up my views on the American electoral system:
posted by Kyle_From_Ottawa @ 4:22 p.m.
5 comments
Veritas said...
I like the way you think, I'll be reading...
Veritas said...
Over at We Move to Canada, you listed 3 reasons why you think America's days as a superpower are numbered.
I don't think your list of reasons that makes America a superpower is complete or accurate.
Individuals are what make us great. People free to work, invent, think, create, have discussions and disagreements, vote, protest, protect ourselves, etc...
Now, I think you are right that our government is spoiling things for us, but as most here agree, our government no longer works for us.
I am convinced that America's future holds either a deep depression or a second civil war. Our dollar IS falling, our military is overstretched and overused, and our leaders are selfish businessmen specializing in the industry of government.
But government isn't what made America the power it once was, it was and is government which destroys the spirit of the American, and thereby the strength of the country.
The idea that profit is wrong or evil in and of itself limits the opportunities for invention or technological advancement. It was the US government and policies of FDR and LBJ who most severely crippled American industry and our economy.
Only severe measures can save us now, such as repealing the IRS, the Federal Reserve, getting government out of schools, reigning in the military, ...
Kyle_From_Ottawa said...
Veritas,
Government is in many ways a reflection of society. When you look at strong arm dictatorships, often the people appreciate the law and order it provides. Dictatorships usually form in countries just emerging from civil war, revolution, etc. where the citizens will gladly give up freedom just to get rid of the crime and violence plauging them.
Likewise, when people feel like they have control of their lives, you end up with democracies. Democracy isn't really what causes a society to be successful, its the end result of a successful society. All developed nations are democracies, but not all democracies are developed nations. This is why the Bush doctrine of "democratizing the middle east" won't work. People need a feeling of ownership in society for a democracy to work. In Iraq, the people won't feel like the government is their own creation and you'll end up with a sham democracy.
Unfortunately, when people are afraid they tend to want that strong arm government again. It's happening in Russia, and it's happening in the U.S. too.
Anyway, you're free to comment here. L-Girl's blog is sort of her own personal space and not really a debate forum. My blog *is* open to debate, and anyone can post here as long as they aren't trying to be deliberately offensive.
Veritas said...
"Unfortunately, when people are afraid they tend to want that strong arm government again. It's happening in Russia, and it's happening in the U.S. too."
Excellent point. However, I wonder what are the American people afraid of, islamic terrorists, or our own government? Personally, I am afraid of neither, but I see the US gov't as more of a threat to my personal freedom and well-being.
Is it fascism when a government deliberately makes its people afraid so that those people will accept things like the Patriot Act and a suspension of Habeas Corpus?
I just can't understand the people of the American right who insist that this "War on Terror" is real when Bush ignores our border insecurity.
Kyle_From_Ottawa said...
As for who's making who afraid, it's self-fulfilling prophecy.
Disregarding the consipracy theories, 9/11 was an external event that made people afraid, so they asked the government to "do something about it". In "doing something about it" the government says there is more dangers, so the people ask government to "so something about that too", and on and on and on in a vicious circle. People are afraid and they're practically asking the government to make them more afraid.
This is similar to what happened in Germany in the 1930s, but in that situation the catalyst was pride instead of fear.
Hi!
I found your blog through comments you posted to "We move to Canada". In there you mentioned that you like to read opposing points of view, which I agree with whole heartedly. So here I am, reading your blog even though you and I would probably sit on opposite sides of the fence in most issues.
Anyway, I disagree with that reasoning for the Electoral college. The American revolution predates Socialism as a political movement.
Actually, I think your entire system was an attempt to form a true representative democracy and avoid the pitfalls of the Westminister Parliamentary system which already existed at the time of your revolution.
Your whole system was meant to work without political parties at all. In theory at least, every House Representative and Senator should be an independant and represent their own region. The president, however had to represent the whole country so they devised the Electoral college as an attempt to prevent regionalism from deciding the presidency.
In contrast, a parliamentary system like we have here in Canada can't function without political parties. The party that wins the most votes becomes the government (both executive & legislative). Except in free votes, MPs are required to vote along party lines. It forms strong governments, but it doesn't work well as a representative system.
In forming political parties, I think the American system lost what was supposed to make it special. Especially now that both Republicans and Democrats have made it almost impossible to chose a 3rd party or independant representative.
This isn't related to your topic, but just something in general when you were complaining about tolerance and balance.
People are pretty much incapable of seeing their own bias. Most people believe they're fair and open minded when they really aren't.
This is why you might watch Bill O'Reilly and think he's being fair and open, and I could watch the same thing and think he's out to lunch. Or why I might think an article in the NY Times is objective, while you would see it as a strongly liberal bias.
When it comes to news, I try to read as many sources as possible, especially ones that I disagree with or make me angry. It's the only way to get the whole truth.
Totally agree with you on the 3rd party thing Kyle.Our two party system is becoming a complete farce. "You scratch my back for awhile and I will scratch yours when you are in power.Meanwhile, lets keep the other guy out of it."
Also, you are right they created the Electoral college to prevent regionalism. That is why we need it more than ever. A lot of folks here in the states do not want 4 places deciding our elections. New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Franciso.Those have a sizable population that could essentially put "their" guy in power. What goes on in NYC is not what goes on in Waldo, FLorida.
Socialism as a concept has been around forever. The framers recognized it. Were scared of it. Government is not the solution it is the problem.
As for my bias, yeah I have it, and I think as human animals we could not live without it.
Thanks for the comments. Unfortunatly, I am not as adamant about posting to my own blog as much as L-Girl.
In the meantime, pray or whatever, that the NHL comes back soon. Go Avalanche!
Kyle,
It is I who has been requested to cease posting my commentary on We Move To Canada, so here I am.
Anyhow, your analysis is much in line with my own in terms of the corruption of our electoral college by the rise of dominant political parties.
You seemt to stipulate that the EC worked at one time, but that we should get rid of IT instead of getting rid of the political parties which have corrupted an otherwise functional system.
Also, I fail to see what you propose instead? Do you prefer a national popular vote with the winner taking all?
How does that differ from the EC, after all if California represents 10% of the national population, it also represents 10% of the EC votes?
In your case I'd suggest either getting rid of political parties or going to proportional representation system at least for EC votes. Otherwise if your a Democrat in Dallas or a Republican Boston you might as well stay home on voting day.
For Canada, I think PR is also a good idea. I used to think that it was a bad idea because it tends to form weak governments in a parliamentary system. Now after watching various parties get more and more arrogant the longer they're in power, I think that weak governments are a good idea.
What I mean that states that use PR with the Electoral College end up with a fair vote compared to states where the winner gets all the electoral votes.
You'd avoid the whole Red States/Blue State I hate you divide, though the election would probably end up the same (as long as ALL states switched to it)
Kyle,
I like the proportional awarding of EC votes much better, primarily because 3rd party candidates could begin to win an EC vote here and there.
There are pockets of America desperately seeking a voice, but it is not heard because the 2 major political parties have stifled those of us who think for ourselves and who can see through their phony lies and distortions.