If IQ attacks us again

[cawacko]

God what a fucking hack.

I can't even read her posts. I'm seriously going to have to IA her.

She is utterly and completely divorced from reality.

Hey Epicurus, I must say much respect man. Even if I disagree with you on some political issues you get your props sir. However Sir I must disagree with your idea of IA'ing Desh. She is right most everytime. The Democrats have played NO role during the past eight years. So the Democratic is angelic my fine sir.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The premise is what happens if people finally figure out what has been going on the last 8+ decades. Has nothing to do with how we'd react to another literal attack. But rather what would happen if we had an attack of intelligence and knowledge. (ie: IQ not AQ)

If that were to happen it does not matter "which party is in charge" at the time since the first thing people would do is throw both fucking parties in the Marianas Trench and start over.

No we wouldn't. Despite it's many flaws our two party system has been politicly stable for over 200 years and it works surprizingly well in a nation as large as ours with the disproportinate representation for the smaller states.

The American people aren't THAT stupid to get rid of something that works so well. Political parties have come and gone in our two party system in the past. The Whigs, Federalist, Tories, and the original Republican (now Democaratic) party all went away or evolved into differant coalitions.

That's what will happen if our two parties continue to not represent their constituents well.

If you want Government to be more responsive to the will of the people then changing political parties wouldn't be nearly as affective as changing that most un-democratic of institutions, the US Senate.

I would start by banning the filibuster where a coalition of senators representing about 10% of the population can tie up legislation that the vast majority of the nation wants. I would also require senators to be reelected every 4 years instead of 6. I'd make other changes to the Senate too.

 

[uscitizen]

It isn't going to happen because of the constant propaganda about it being a wasted vote.

Check the polls concerning approval ratings of the president and congress. They are somewhere below used lawyers and used car salesmen in this dept.

We have had scandal after scandal. Been promised the moon and screwed like a $2 whore every time by both parties.

Do you actually believe that either party has our best interests at heart?

I have seen nothing to make me believe that any third party actually has our best interests at heart either. Sad , sad.

 

[Cancel3]

I have seen nothing to make me believe that any third party actually has our best interests at heart either. Sad , sad.

At least it would break the gridlock that currently screws up the process.

 

[uscitizen]

At least it would break the gridlock that currently screws up the process.

It would merley spread out the payoffs to another party.

I personally think all political parties should be banned in all finiancial senses.

do not ban the ideology but remove the money.

 

[Good Luck]

No we wouldn't. Despite it's many flaws our two party system has been politicly stable for over 200 years and it works surprizingly well in a nation as large as ours with the disproportinate representation for the smaller states.

The American people aren't THAT stupid to get rid of something that works so well. Political parties have come and gone in our two party system in the past. The Whigs, Federalist, Tories, and the original Republican (now Democaratic) party all went away or evolved into differant coalitions.

That's what will happen if our two parties continue to not represent their constituents well.

If you want Government to be more responsive to the will of the people then changing political parties wouldn't be nearly as affective as changing that most un-democratic of institutions, the US Senate.

I would start by banning the filibuster where a coalition of senators representing about 10% of the population can tie up legislation that the vast majority of the nation wants. I would also require senators to be reelected every 4 years instead of 6. I'd make other changes to the Senate too.

You misinterpreted what I meant by throwing both parties in the Marianas trench. I did not mean get rid of the two party SYSTEM, but get rid of the two current parties.

We already changed the Senate. Made their election direct from the people rather than appointed by the state governments. Took what was a carefully designed balance between state and federal authority and screwed it to hell.

And do try to remember our government was never intended to be a democracy. It is a democratic republic. Things like the electoral college and the (original) design of the senate were intentionally added with the understanding that a full blown federal democracy would never work in a nation made of of widely diverse regions and peoples.

Best to understand the reasons for the way the senate was designed before proposing a bunch of changes. The founders understood well what you apparently do not: a pure democracy can be the worst of tyrannies.

And don't be too quick to poo-poo the filibuster. They way our society swings like a pendulum on positive feedback, the day will come when it is the party representing YOUR ideals that is forced to filibuster to keep a piece of legislation you despise from being passed.

 

[Minister of Truth]

In 1992 Ross Perot got 18.2% of the popular vote. That is a significant chunk of the vote.

And while he didn't win any electoral vote, he shook up the system.

Its not a wasted vote. The 18% of the voters who cast their lot for Perot got a serious message across.

It may not happen this election. But the only reason it doesn't it because people believe the two big parties when they say it can't be done.

It may be the only thing most people believe from them, but they certainly do believe it.

Former Democratic Governor of Alabama George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party line. Wallace received 9,901,118 votes for 13.5% of the popular vote, receiving 45 electoral votes in the South and many votes in the North. Wallace remains the only third party candidate since 1948 to win a state.

Yeah, Wallace got a bunch of moronic and evil Southerners to vote for his segregationist platform. Not that difficult to carry some of their states under that scenareo. But he didn't carry any worthwhile states, even if some weirdos up North chose to vote for him.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You misinterpreted what I meant by throwing both parties in the Marianas trench. I did not mean get rid of the two party SYSTEM, but get rid of the two current parties.

We already changed the Senate. Made their election direct from the people rather than appointed by the state governments. Took what was a carefully designed balance between state and federal authority and screwed it to hell.

And do try to remember our government was never intended to be a democracy. It is a democratic republic. Things like the electoral college and the (original) design of the senate were intentionally added with the understanding that a full blown federal democracy would never work in a nation made of of widely diverse regions and peoples.

Best to understand the reasons for the way the senate was designed before proposing a bunch of changes. The founders understood well what you apparently do not: a pure democracy can be the worst of tyrannies.

And don't be too quick to poo-poo the filibuster. They way our society swings like a pendulum on positive feedback, the day will come when it is the party representing YOUR ideals that is forced to filibuster to keep a piece of legislation you despise from being passed.

I understand what the founding fathers intent was with the Senate. That doesn't mean they were always right. No one institution has thwarted legislation aimed a promoting the public interest than the US Senate has. It's time it was reformed, again.

 

[Good Luck]

I understand what the founding fathers intent was with the Senate. That doesn't mean they were always right. No one institution has thwarted legislation aimed a promoting the public interest than the US Senate has. It's time it was reformed, again.

You may think you understand the intent of the senate as designed by the founders. Frankly, you do NOT understand the reason the Senate works. Your opinion on what the effects of legislation blocked in the senate is YOUR opinion. The fact that the senate blocked it means more U.S. senators disagree with your assessment than agree with it. I would estimate that you are not significantly more intelligent than either the majority of senators, nor the founders. (Not to say you are unintelligent either.)

What is good for some states is not always good for all states. That is a fact about a nation as widely diverse as we are. That is why the states were supposed to have at least as much if not more power than the federal government. That is why certain types of laws (education, transportation, etc.) are SUPPOSED to be up to the states. That is why it is such total bogus bullshit when the federal government uses fiscal blackmail to coerce state decisions in areas that state authority is constitutionally superior.

Items "aimed at promoting the public interest" may not automatically work as written in all states. What is helpful in some states may end up hurting others. In a pure democratic approach large population states would dominate smaller states. That was considered intolerable when the constitution was written (thus leading to the "great compromise") and it is equally intolerable a notion today. Montana (and similar small states) have significantly different needs and concerns than New York, California, etc. As such, states as a body need equal representation in the federal government.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

As the United States thinks of itself more as a nation than a collection of states support for the senate will dwindle. Federalism has its place, but there's no reason all subunits of a federal state have to have equal voice in the national unit. The national unit should represent the individual citizens under it, just as the subnational unit should only represent the citizen sunder it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No we wouldn't. Despite it's many flaws our two party system has been politicly stable for over 200 years and it works surprizingly well in a nation as large as ours with the disproportinate representation for the smaller states.

The American people aren't THAT stupid to get rid of something that works so well. Political parties have come and gone in our two party system in the past. The Whigs, Federalist, Tories, and the original Republican (now Democaratic) party all went away or evolved into differant coalitions.

That's what will happen if our two parties continue to not represent their constituents well.

If you want Government to be more responsive to the will of the people then changing political parties wouldn't be nearly as affective as changing that most un-democratic of institutions, the US Senate.

I would start by banning the filibuster where a coalition of senators representing about 10% of the population can tie up legislation that the vast majority of the nation wants. I would also require senators to be reelected every 4 years instead of 6. I'd make other changes to the Senate too.

I definitely think the two party system should go. Stop your fearmongering. There are dozens of perfectly stable multiple party systems in the world. You can actually vote for a party that speaks your language rather than betraying your principles so that someone else doesn't get elected.

There are also plenty examples of states that use our system that came under the domination of one party for decades. That's much worse than even an unstable multiple party system. And instability can be easily prevented by having a threshold of five percent.

But I agree with you on reform. The senate, house, and presidency all need to be elected at intervals of four years, the filibuster needs to be abolished, and the senate needs to give up all control over money bills. But the senate and house also need to be elected by proportional representation, and the house should have the ability to call a new presidential election at any time.

 

[Good Luck]

As the United States thinks of itself more as a nation than a collection of states support for the senate will dwindle. Federalism has its place, but there's no reason all subunits of a federal state have to have equal voice in the national unit. The national unit should represent the individual citizens under it, just as the subnational unit should only represent the citizen sunder it.

If we were a smaller homogeneous country, state representation would not be a factor. But we are not. The needs of a low population, high agricultural state are WAY different than the needs of high population, high industry states. In the population-only representational model the needs of lower population states would be overwhelmed by the much larger representational power of high population states.

Try reading a bit of history on the topic. The differences between state representation and population representation was hammered on again and again and again in the Constitutional Convention. The recognition that both types of representation were valid - and needed - brought about the Great Compromise.

While federalism does have its place, it cannot be the overriding factor in a large diverse nation. The federal government is simply too unwieldy to be able to respond to the differing needs of different regions. The needs of wheat farmers are different than the needs of auto manufacturers. The one-size-fits-all of federalism cannot be applied. That is why so many federal assistance programs end up being so inefficient and ineffective.

Things have changed significantly since the Constitution was written. But nothing has changed to make the representational role of the senate vs the representational role of the House invalid. In fact, being much larger and much more diverse than we were in the 1780's, the reasoning for designing the Senate to provide equal representation for the states is even more valid.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

While federalism does have its place, it cannot be the overriding factor in a large diverse nation. The federal government is simply too unwieldy to be able to respond to the differing needs of different regions. The needs of wheat farmers are different than the needs of auto manufacturers. The one-size-fits-all of federalism cannot be applied. That is why so many federal assistance programs end up being so inefficient and ineffective.

And Good Luck, what about the groups of people that don't happen to fit within state borders? Every group doesn't have its own designated geographical area. But you overrepresent those that do and give no representation to those that don't. Just accept that democracy is a valid way to organize society, regardless of the majority question.

 

[Good Luck]

And Good Luck, what about the groups of people that don't happen to fit within state borders? Every group doesn't have its own designated geographical area. But you overrepresent those that do and give no representation to those that don't. Just accept that democracy is a valid way to organize society, regardless of the majority question.

Care to give an example of what groups of people do not "fit within state borders" or have a geographical location? People gotta live somewhere, and the places they live are diverse. Different regions have different problems and different needs. A person living in a region will be affected by those differing needs. Frankly the idea of unrepresented people because they "don't happen to fit within state borders" sounds like a load of shit.

Of course there are also differing regions with differing needs within states. But state governments, being smaller, are correspondingly more flexible in the ability to meet differing needs within the states. That is why much of the overall hierarchy of government was (before the system was systematically corrupted) reserved to state governments. The smaller and more local government of individual states gives people more control - and THERE lies your democracy.

You complain about the lack of democracy in our society, but do not recognize the reason. You want to try to adjust the FEDERAL government to be more democratic, but do not recognize what the writers of the Constitution knew full well: the federal government, because it is large and presiding over a diverse culture, cannot truly be democratic. That is why they tried to limit federal power and give more power to the state governments where the people have more control. And people in control is what democracy is about.

But in the last century the federal government has been usurping more and more power from the states. It is not possible for people to be in control of a government the size of our federal government. Representation is reduced the more groups the government tries to represent. The larger the government, the larger the percentage who lack representation by falling into one or more political minorities. The imbalance caused by allowing the federal government too much power is the problem. You want better democracy, give more power back to the states, and cut back federal authority. Then let the federal government go back to its original purpose: to provide a common ground within which the STATES can function.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Water forgets that there are county and city/town governments as well...

 

[Good Luck]

Some people have come to the belief that local and state government primary functions are to implement federal policies. They take the concept of federalism to a whole new level.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That's not even federalism, its nationalism. Federalism is the belief that the national and the state/local governments work simultaneously and have differing responsibilities while the national is supreme in matters which pertain to it. The Founders developed it out of their worldview which stated that colonists were only accountable to the King and not to parliament. Once the King violated their English Constitutional rights, and Natural Rights by extension, by siding with Parliament, they felt that their local parliaments were being "usurped."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Some people have come to the belief that local and state government primary functions are to implement federal policies. They take the concept of federalism to a whole new level.

Subnational units are responsible for carrying out whatever business they want. The federal government should take care of it's own business also.

 

[uscitizen]

hmm It is clear to see that we will not suffer a massive IQ attack anytime soon.