2 Party system VS 3 - 4 party system of government.

[Epidemic]

I am sometimes tempted to want more parties but that thought is usually fleeting. 3 party government virtually guarantees that you will end up with a majority of the people not getting what they desire.

a 4 party system actually can have 26% of the vote driving policy. I think it may place more fringe ideals squarely in the drivers seat more often.

[Creatures]

direct democracy!

i don't know what is better but i know that the american system as it is now is pretty much horrible, from outsider point of view, the democrats/republicans are both the same, act the same want the same

for our standards both parties are still on the right side of the political spectrum

Creatures

[butch81385]

I am a fan of countries that do direct run-offs. All the candidates that want to run can run in the first vote. Any candidate with the majority wins. If no one has the majority (>50%) then all candidates under X% are dropped and another election is held. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50% of the votes.

If this were the case people could vote for the independent candidates without fear of "throwing away" their votes. If the independent candidate doesn't get enough votes, then you vote for the next best person in the next election.

[pickel]

I am a fan of countries that do direct run-offs. All the candidates that want to run can run in the first vote. Any candidate with the majority wins. If no one has the majority (>50%) then all candidates under X% are dropped and another election is held. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50% of the votes.

If this were the case people could vote for the independent candidates without fear of "throwing away" their votes. If the independent candidate doesn't get enough votes, then you vote for the next best person in the next election.

Please describe "Next Best Person" LOL

[butch81385]

Please describe "Next Best Person" LOL

Take the last presidential election. I did not think think that McCain and Obama were the best people for the job. So under what I had described I could vote for someone like Ron Paul without just throwing the vote away. Then, after round 1, if Ron Paul and other people didn't get enough votes to keep going, then I would choose between Obama and McCain. But if Ron Paul got enough votes to continue, then maybe other independents would rather vote for him than Obama or McCain.

Basically it lets you vote for who you want to win. Then if that person doesn't win, you have a chance to pick who else you would vote for. In other words, a vote for one person doesn't necessarily mean a vote against another.

[pickel]

Take the last presidential election. I did not think think that McCain and Obama were the best people for the job. So under what I had described I could vote for someone like Ron Paul without just throwing the vote away. Then, after round 1, if Ron Paul and other people didn't get enough votes to keep going, then I would choose between Obama and McCain. But if Ron Paul got enough votes to continue, then maybe other independents would rather vote for him than Obama or McCain.

Basically it lets you vote for who you want to win. Then if that person doesn't win, you have a chance to pick who else you would vote for. In other words, a vote for one person doesn't necessarily mean a vote against another.

I know what you mean. However in the last election, I found none of the candidates to be fitting for the duties of the presidency. Actually the crop we have now have is certainly less than desirable.
What , in reality, choice do we really ever have ???

[MTAtech]

We can't even change health care you think we're going to overhaul the political system?

The problem is money. A Senator must raise $100,000 a week for the next election. As such, they are beholden to special interests for support. How do the Europeans keep the influence of money out of politics?

[pickel]

How do the Europeans keep the influence of money out of politics?

They send women and wine. How else ???






Don't they ??

[Creatures]

it works over here because they don't have to spend millions for elections.
there are no "rallies" and public speeches like you are used to over there.

although politicians of higher rank are rich here too, mainly to make sure that they aren't corruptible, it's a well paid job over here

Creatures

[MTAtech]

Pick senators at random from the population. Pay them the same salary as a senator (and the ability to opt-out if they do not want to serve).

Give them some basic quizs to make sure they understand politics and aren't someone like say, Paris Hilton.

A short 1-2 year term would be enough, once you have served, you can never serve again.

You would get total dumbass 5th grade drop outs like me, but sometimes you might also get intelligent and smart open minded people like MTAtech.

That would be step 1, step 2 would be ensuring they do not use their power to enrich themselves. If you are found to be using your senate power to enrich yourself, you win a 20 year prison sentence.

Senators found guilty of porking bills or taking kickbacks would be dealt with severely.

You honor me with that complement but unduly denigrate your own standing unnecessarily.

I don't like testing process because it can be skewed to limit some people unfairly. I also don't like limiting terms to two, that only guarantees that there is no lasting expertise and experience longer than 12 years.

Perhaps the easiest method is a public funding system.

Nah, how about a game show like American Idol, except for people who want to get into politics?