I predict alot of disillusion young voters after this

Subject: Re: I predict alot of disillusion young voters after this

armchair_warrior wrote:
i wish there was our system is more like a parliamentary system instead.

You've got to be kidding. A parliamentary system (where the executive is dependent on the legislature) is no guarantee whatsoever against same-old same-old duopoly. On the contrary, under the US presidential system, the president once elected has a degree of independence from the party that Prime Ministers generally lack.

What really matters is the degree of proportional representation in whichever electoral system you have.

doctorj wrote: [quote=raw]
Islam and Christianity and Judaism all look the same to me too.

Christianity is definitely the odd one out in that triad, on account of the fact that it's not monotheistic, and in the case of its largest branch, closer to polytheism.
That is _very_ arguable.

As far as Obama being the winner, that is far from a foregone conclusion.

As far as Obama being more of the same, and the disillusionment factor, there is definitely some validity to that. He promotes himself as the candidate of change, hope for the youth, and yet politically we just continue to see more of the same. Maybe if he is elected we will see some of the difference, but I wouldn't count on it.

Sorry, I had to do it.

Boygabriel wrote: The U.S. needs a few serious minority parties, without that, the system of government won't matter.

You have to have smaller parties who's support the major parties must rely on and make deals with to get legislation done. In this regard Canada does it right.

You can have as many serious minor parties as you like, but unless you change the voting system to allow for greater proportional representation, they will never amount to squat, and you'll always end up with a duopoly (if you're lucky and don't get a monopoly). My favorite system is the mixed local/proportional scheme some countries use, which you can do unicamerally or bicamerally, and which gives you the best of both worlds. Half the members are local representatives just like congress. Half are chosen according to their proportion in the national vote. It can even be done mathematically like in Germany where the number of local candidates is adjusted until it's 100% local and 100% proportional. Or you can give people two votes, one for a candidate, one for parties. Another reasonable bicameral compromise is to have local representation with duopoly in the lower house, and full proportional with lots of minor parties in the upper house.

Whichever system you choose, the fact remains that in first-past-the-post voting like in the US, and with both houses populated with winner-takes-all local candidates, you'll never get more than 2 parties with significant power.

The depressing thing is that electoral reform is incredibly difficult to achieve when you have a duopoly that has no interest in opening the field. Not impossible though -- New Zealand managed to change an excellent mixed member proportional system in 1993.

doctorj wrote:

raw wrote:

Islam and Christianity and Judaism all look the same to me too.

Christianity is definitely the odd one out in that triad, on account of the fact that it's not monotheistic, and in the case of its largest branch, closer to polytheism.

That is _very_ arguable.

I know, which is why I said it. However I think many Jews and most Muslims would agree, and while most Christians would disagree, it's a conclusion I came to based on first-hand experience.