NationStates Jolt Archive

the fundamental problems of America's government?

I think we can agree that the majority of the voting population cast their vote in the presidential election as a vote against someone rather than for someone. This means that most of the nation could not find a applicable representative. And not only did they not voice their outrage that the government has become so distant and authoritarian, but they showed up to support this abomination of democracy in record numbers!

I can, in all honesty, say that I do not trust the government to represent me, and I would wager that most of you do not either. So why are we not doing anything about it? Are we sheep? Are we too concerned with conformity to look out for our own best interests? Are we naturally predisposed to submit to authority and sacrifice our own autonomy?

I at one point in my life had a great deal more respect for the human race, but the democracy in this country has shown me how high some people can rise, and just how low the rest can be.

The thing is, with our current conservative government, anyone who does not conform is tossed aside like a hippie/lunatic/tree hugger. Until the liberals win back the house, senate, and white house, no one dares speak out in such a way.

I, strangely, agree with VO.

The thing is, with our current conservative government, anyone who does not conform is tossed aside like a hippie/lunatic/tree hugger. Until the liberals win back the house, senate, and white house, no one dares speak out in such a way.

This isn't a conservative/liberal thing. The fact that you immediately translate it as one only shows that you completely missed my point.

The government is not even close to a service to the people. It isn't even close to being binded by it. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, as this past election is the best thing that could have happened to the Democratic party. They have an rediculous amount of blind unity behind it now.

I, strangely, agree with VO.

Hey, VO knows government.

worked for 225+ years, I'm not worried about it

worked for 225+ years, I'm not worried about it

That is little solace for me.

The thing is, with our current conservative government, anyone who does not conform is tossed aside like a hippie/lunatic/tree hugger. Until the liberals win back the house, senate, and white house, no one dares speak out in such a way.
Yes, I have reported your liberal views to the proper authorities, be expecting a visit from the FBI shortly . . .
That's why we just locked up Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, James Carville, Paul Begala, Michael Moore, because the conservative government allows no dissent . . .
That's why the soldier that questioned Rumsfeld about armoring our military vehicles was shot at dawn . . .

the fundamental problems of America's government?

I think we can agree that the majority of the voting population cast their vote in the presidential election as a vote against someone rather than for someone. This means that most of the nation could not find a applicable representative. And not only did they not voice their outrage that the government has become so distant and authoritarian, but they showed up to support this abomination of democracy in record numbers!

I can, in all honesty, say that I do not trust the government to represent me, and I would wager that most of you do not either. So why are we not doing anything about it? Are we sheep? Are we too concerned with conformity to look out for our own best interests? Are we naturally predisposed to submit to authority and sacrifice our own autonomy?

I at one point in my life had a great deal more respect for the human race, but the democracy in this country has shown me how high some people can rise, and just how low the rest can be.

Seems to me that it can be explained by the horrible values that our country has adopted. Before you start thinking that I'm just just another fundamentalist idiot, hear me out. In the past people had values and used them when they voted. It was a matter of right and wrong. However, over the years we became jaded. Today the only things that we value are affulence and personal peace. So as long as I keep making money and no one disturbs me, I really don't care what happens. This means that when we go out to vote, we vote so that nothing will change the way that we live. This is why we vote AGAINST something instead of FOR something. And this is not likely to change any time soon until we decide to get our priorites straight. The generation currently growing up seems to understand this, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. After all, it was largely the hippies who grew up to be yuppies, who epitemized these horrible values.

Seems to me that it can be explained by the horrible values that our country has adopted. Before you start thinking that I'm just just another fundamentalist idiot, hear me out. In the past people had values and used them when they voted. It was a matter of right and wrong. However, over the years we became jaded. Today the only things that we value are affulence and personal peace. So as long as I keep making money and no one disturbs me, I really don't care what happens. This means that when we go out to vote, we vote so that nothing will change the way that we live. This is why we vote AGAINST something instead of FOR something. And this is not likely to change any time soon until we decide to get our priorites straight. The generation currently growing up seems to understand this, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. After all, it was largely the hippies who grew up to be yuppies, who epitemized these horrible values.

The problems have nothing to do with morals. In fact, morals have provided the government a sort of mandate to be opportunists. Morals were the defining reason people voted this year, on both sides. Neither side voted for who would be most able to fill the position and represent the people, they voted for whose public image most coincided with their own personal idealogies. Think about it, do George Bush or John Kerry seriously come close to even seem like they aim to represent the citizenry of the United States?

The problems have nothing to do with morals. In fact, morals have provided the government a sort of mandate to be opportunists. Morals were the defining reason people voted this year, on both sides. Neither side voted for who would be most able to fill the position and represent the people, they voted for whose public image most coincided with their own personal idealogies. Think about it, do George Bush or John Kerry seriously come close to even seem like they aim to represent the citizenry of the United States?

You missed my point. When I said "values" I was not talking about morals. Values are what we think is important in life and provide the basis for morals. What I am saying is that (most) people don't think that anything is all that important anymore. So they voted that way. Or they stayed home. If memory serves, we still didn't get much more than 50% voter turnout.

You missed my point. When I said "values" I was not talking about morals. Values are what we think is important in life and provide the basis for morals. What I am saying is that (most) people don't think that anything is all that important anymore. So they voted that way. Or they stayed home. If memory serves, we still didn't get much more than 50% voter turnout.

But more people than ever valued their right to vote in this past election, and all it did was to strenghthen the strangle hold the current government has over our democracy. The people are not represented by this government, and even when fanatically motivated, they do nothing about it.

worked for 225+ years, I'm not worried about it
What the hell are you smoking? I hope it's not a prohibited subtance.

But more people than ever valued their right to vote in this past election, and all it did was to strenghthen the strangle hold the current government has over our democracy. The people are not represented by this government, and even when fanatically motivated, they do nothing about it.

Apparetly, people do feel represented, otherwise they would have voted other people into office. Plus, remember that out elected officials will never represent the entire country. They will only represent the people who vote. Did you?

What the hell are you smoking? I hope it's not a prohibited subtance.
fried chicken

If you can figure out how to get out of having a two-party system, many problems of this sort will fade.

Of course, the two parties that exist have a vested interest in keeping it a two-party system, so they certainly aren't going to pass any legislation that would encourage further parties (read: "competition").

Even just proportional representation would help.

Apparetly, people do feel represented, otherwise they would have voted other people into office. Plus, remember that out elected officials will never represent the entire country. They will only represent the people who vote. Did you?

Of course, it could also be that many people realized there was only a point to voting Option A or Option B even though they don't agree with either. Voting for any other option would be throwing away their vote. Thus, they may not really feel represented by their choice.

Apparetly, people do feel represented, otherwise they would have voted other people into office. Plus, remember that out elected officials will never represent the entire country. They will only represent the people who vote. Did you?

I did.

Most people do not trust the government, both presidential candidates recieved most of their votes due to a lesser of two evils logic, congressional districts are reorganized so that it is almost impossible to not get reelected to Congress, the people dictating our current military action never served in the military, and the two party system has never been more centralized and powerful. Those are all signs of a very weak democracy.

I have to agree with VO, But extend it to the UK.

The labour party here got in the first time simply because we had 18 years of Tory rule. After 2 terms of labour there is now a growing discontentment with them, I think they might get back in as the vote is this year but I don't think they will make it back for a 4th time.

Oh my. Well our government deeply troubles me. Our system seems to me to be almost irrevokably broken. The two-party system no longer works to bring candidates that are even remotely interested in representing the will of their constituencies into action. It is so deeply entrenched that anyone from outside these two political machines has no chance of capturing the vote and ascending to office. The parties most often refuse to work together towards enacting the will of the citizens into law or protecting their interests.

The problem I see with trying to change it is that we have no real means to do so. Even taking an active role by lobbying or joining activist groups seems utterly futile unless you can gain the backing of some much larger, very wealthy and influential entity that can bring real pressure to bear on the incumbents. It becomes even more dicey in the wake of the Patriot Acts, which give the central government the nod to blow off anyone's rights to due process and by vague wording effectively allows the government to decide on no evidence that you are an enemy of the state.

As I see it, the government has, in the last decade, made it a very dangerous thing to seek changes that it itself has not already proposed and initiated. A lot of this last decade's laws seem to almost openly force the "common people" to keep their heads down and accept whatever the government hands us quietly. I am frankly appalled that some things, like the central government's meddling in State laws and overturning state legislations to suit its own agendas where it should have no jurisdiction (ie use of medical marijuana and gay marriage issues). This speaks to me in terms of dictatorship rather than democracy.

It also disturbs me that our current president openly admits, and proudly, that he governs by the dictates of his personal faith rather than by actually bothering to find out the actual will of those he governs, effectively forcing his faith on America's citizens regardless of their feelings on the matter, even when in a signifigant number of cases his faith is in direct conflict with the interests, beliefs and wellbeing of the citizens. Of course, this begs the issue of the Constitutional right to our freedoms to follow whatever faiths and beliefs we choose in the manner of our choosing, but this is not the first of our Constitutional rights that our government has conveniently ignored.

But how DO we change this when we are given no voice, when voting has become a sham and when seeking to change the system has become an increasingly dangerous proposition? Every time enough of America becomes fed up enough to make itself heard, the government conveniently pulls another threat out of its collective ass to shut us up or dupe or frighten us into supporting it. I feel almost as if we are living in old Rome in the days of their empire -- all bread and circuses to lull the masses.

I have no answers and no solutions, only questions and deep reservations.

If you can figure out how to get out of having a two-party system, many problems of this sort will fade.

Of course, the two parties that exist have a vested interest in keeping it a two-party system, so they certainly aren't going to pass any legislation that would encourage further parties (read: "competition").

Even just proportional representation would help.
Agreed. You need more options.

If you can figure out how to get out of having a two-party system, many problems of this sort will fade.

Of course, the two parties that exist have a vested interest in keeping it a two-party system, so they certainly aren't going to pass any legislation that would encourage further parties (read: "competition").

Even just proportional representation would help.

Honestly, I prefer the two-oarty system to the alternatives. I reject a one-party system for the obvious reasons. For a three-party, usually it ends up being two large parties and one small one, with none having a majority. In order to form a government, one of the large parties makes a deal with the small party. However, in order to keep the coaltion going, the large party has to give in to many demands of the small party. We end up with the tail wagging the dog. In systems with more parties, we tend to end up with very shaky coalition governments. Eventually, one of the small parties gets unhappy and leaves, adn the coalition collapses. This leads to very unstable government. Certain southern European countries are notorious for this. About the only thing to do is eliminate political parties altogether, but then people would tend to group together making a party in all but name.

As for proportional representation, I dislike the idea. Here's a really easy example. In the last election, the campaigning focused on the "battleground" states, that is, those with lots of electoral votes and not yet seen as leaning completely towards one candidate. However, if the Presidential election went to popular vote, then all a candidate would need to do is win the dozen largest cities in the country and the election would be all over. This leaves the country polarized between urban and rural, much worse than it already is.

... In systems with more parties, we tend to end up with very shaky coalition governments. Eventually, one of the small parties gets unhappy and leaves, adn the coalition collapses. This leads to very unstable government. Certain southern European countries are notorious for this. About the only thing to do is eliminate political parties altogether, but then people would tend to group together making a party in all but name....

I have to disagree. Some southern european countries may have problems with shaky coalitions but as I don't know which countries you mean I can't really say anything for them. France has some serious problems with their parties, but the reasons are different. (when the power changes the one who wins wants to change every single person in every single job which takes a lot of time and energy) In general multiparty system works fine. We have three big parties, two medium and several smaller parties. Most of the cases the government is a coalition of 2 bigger and maybe one smaller parties and to me it seems that they usually are anything but shaky. And if the government sometimes collapses, is it really a bad thing?

USA for parlimentary system!!

Nay, Aye? :D

I'm not American, but I do live in America's largest and politically closest proctectorate so I feel that I have a right to comment on the current state of the US government. And having said that I don't think my countrymen are much different to yours, because I see Americans largely as being consumer-driven, TV-gawking work-a-day drones that aren't really bothered about much as long as no one flies planes into their buildings and the air conditioning works in McDonalds. I mean no disrepsect to the Americans or Brits that post intelligent and thought provoking comments and questions on here, but let's be honest, you're not representative of your average American voter are you?

You voted in a President in out of fear. That's all. And while some liberals may cry foul over how right-wing the USA is becoming, I personally think this is the natural order of things. Historically speaking the 60s are not that long since, and society now is a reaction to all that "free love" nonsense that meant absolutely Jack Shit in the big scheme of things. We see the anti-war protests did nothing. Weed is still illegal. Love is far from free. The hippies were liars and screw-ups, and we see them for the frauds they were. Damn them all to Hell and strap on your FBI issue jackboots, we've got legislators to kick out...

Don't be surprised to see homosexuals alongside peace protesters in your newly built jails in the next ten years, Americans. Your country will be the safest on the planet, your TV shows will be the funniest, and your air-conditioned McDonalds restaurants will be the cleanest in the world. No one will live in poverty and trust will be gauged on how much money you have in the bank.

God Bless America.

worked for 225+ years, I'm not worried about it
so did rome's government. and we all know what happened to them.

I have to disagree. Some southern european countries may have problems with shaky coalitions but as I don't know which countries you mean I can't really say anything for them. France has some serious problems with their parties, but the reasons are different. (when the power changes the one who wins wants to change every single person in every single job which takes a lot of time and energy) In general multiparty system works fine. We have three big parties, two medium and several smaller parties. Most of the cases the government is a coalition of 2 bigger and maybe one smaller parties and to me it seems that they usually are anything but shaky. And if the government sometimes collapses, is it really a bad thing?

I was thinking Italy in particular. I once heard a statistic that they got a new government every ten months, on average. Plus there is the whole Weimar Republic issue, where there were so many parties that they could hardly ever agree on anything.

I was thinking Italy in particular. I once heard a statistic that they got a new government every ten months, on average. Plus there is the whole Weimar Republic issue, where there were so many parties that they could hardly ever agree on anything.
I admit I don't know much about governments in Italy. Except that I believe Berlusconi and his Forza Italia has been in power for ages now. 10 years if I remembered it correctly.

the fundamental problems of America's government?

I think we can agree that the majority of the voting population cast their vote in the presidential election as a vote against someone rather than for someone. This means that most of the nation could not find a applicable representative. And not only did they not voice their outrage that the government has become so distant and authoritarian, but they showed up to support this abomination of democracy in record numbers!

I can, in all honesty, say that I do not trust the government to represent me, and I would wager that most of you do not either. So why are we not doing anything about it? Are we sheep? Are we too concerned with conformity to look out for our own best interests? Are we naturally predisposed to submit to authority and sacrifice our own autonomy?

I at one point in my life had a great deal more respect for the human race, but the democracy in this country has shown me how high some people can rise, and just how low the rest can be.
Vittos! At it again, are we? Tsk! I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. Is this more ennui because Kerry lost? Is it real concern about the democratic process in America? Please say more.

so did rome's government. and we all know what happened to them.
Surely you don't expect the American Constitutional Republic to exist forever in its current form? Change is inevitable, whether extreme or gradual, and the best we can do is work for it to be in a direction we favor.

Do you mean that both men were members of the same Yale power broker fraternity "Bones". That the American people were given the choice between the same candidate sold in different ways?

Yeah I noticed.

VO, this is the same form of government that has elected every previous US government. I suppose that the reason you don't like it is because it's not one you personally voted for.

If you had been a conservative during the Clinton years, you would be saying the same thing. And had John Kerry won, would you have said the government was OK? That the form of elections here was OK?

It's a republic, not a democracy. And in any faintly democratic system (including this one), you're going to get tyranny of the majority. It's just that the Democrats in the US have enjoyed decades of majorities and now the balance has swung back the other way, and they don't know how to live with it.

I guess we should change the rules and re-do elections every time you don't feel like the election was "fair", i.e., it didn't come out your way.

One could have made the same argument when Clinton was elected. If you consider that a certain percentage didn't vote at all, and a certain percentage didn't vote *for* Clinton, a majority of people therefore did *not* vote for Clinton. Now substitute the name Bush, and you'll see what I mean.

But more people than ever valued their right to vote in this past election, and all it did was to strenghthen the strangle hold the current government has over our democracy. The people are not represented by this government, and even when fanatically motivated, they do nothing about it.
Um ... I'm one of "the people" and I think this government represents me, at least in part ( which is the best anyone can hope for in a democracy, yes? ).

I did.

Most people do not trust the government, both presidential candidates recieved most of their votes due to a lesser of two evils logic, congressional districts are reorganized so that it is almost impossible to not get reelected to Congress, the people dictating our current military action never served in the military, and the two party system has never been more centralized and powerful. Those are all signs of a very weak democracy.
In whose opinion? It seems to me that more people were interested in the outcome of the last election than have been interested in politics in a long, long time. To me, that seems a sign of health, not weakness.

The thing is, with our current conservative government, anyone who does not conform is tossed aside like a hippie/lunatic/tree hugger. Until the liberals win back the house, senate, and white house, no one dares speak out in such a way.
And then all conservatives are tossed aside as right wing nut-jobs.

worked for 225+ years, I'm not worried about it
Well, it's not like the US government has been perfect for that time...

Apparetly, people do feel represented, otherwise they would have voted other people into office.
No, VO dismissed this in the original post when he noted that the majority of voters voted against someone rather than for someone.

Um ... I'm one of "the people" and I think this government represents me, at least in part ( which is the best anyone can hope for in a democracy, yes? ).
Really? I thought you only voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry?

VO, this is the same form of government that has elected every previous US government. I suppose that the reason you don't like it is because it's not one you personally voted for.

If you had been a conservative during the Clinton years, you would be saying the same thing. And had John Kerry won, would you have said the government was OK? That the form of elections here was OK?

One could have made the same argument when Clinton was elected. If you consider that a certain percentage didn't vote at all, and a certain percentage didn't vote *for* Clinton, a majority of people therefore did *not* vote for Clinton. Now substitute the name Bush, and you'll see what I mean.
Indeed, Clinton never won a majority, but why do you assume that VO liked Clinton?

I never understood the conservative hatred for Clinton. Idealogically, he was closer to them than liberals. I think that it was perception by the media and the assumption that because he was Democrat then he was liberal.

Anyway, I digress. I think VO's central point is that there is something wrong when the majority of people voted against someone rather than for someone they genuinely liked.

In earlier posts I said that US should get rid of two party system. To get more options (real options). I just realised that even in multiparty systems people vote as much against someone as they vote for someone.

On the first round they might vote who they like, but on the second round the situation is quite similar than in US. It's not sure that your guy, or gal, will be on the second round. Mine has never been.

I've got no problem with voting against someone. We can't all have the cantidates we want to vote for. Choosing the lesser of two evils is always going to be the choice for most people. The problem is that too many people won;t even bother to do that.

You're all talking about tyranny of the majority. No current "democracy" has a workable solution to that problem.

Various posts

Good morning Eutrusca.

The point to my argument is that the government is more distant and protected than ever before. Due to a pair of parties that have fewer differences than my left and right hand, we are forced to choose between two candidates in which neither are adequate representatives of the best interests of the people. There is no need to kid ourselves and say that the government is about service more than career anymore, yet we do nothing to hinder the power grabs and monopolizing of government by these people who are keenly interested in continuing their careers. That means that we have allowed a government to form that is:

1) only representative of the elite class, Bush and Kerry were immensely wealthy and have no idea of the interests of the majority of the people in this nation, let alone the interest to serve them
2) distant, as it has become so structured and bureaucratic that even if one does manage to figuratively fight through the sea of lobbyists, your congressman still won't listen to your small wallet
3) entrenched, very few of the members of congress came even close losing their seat, and many ran unopposed, and with current redistricting and PAC donations, it is unlikely to change

I am surprised that you feel represented by this government. Despite your backing of GW you seem to be a very shrewd person.

Ya know, it's similiar in the UK (IMO)

Many people do not like the current government, but feel they have little choice as the current opposition is weak and doesn't display the qualities needed by such an important job.

Mind you, our flawed voting system doesn't help either. But that's another story.

I think you'll find that most country's have simlar problems, in the fact there isn't really a choice, or they vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

The point to my argument is that the government is more distant and protected than ever before. Due to a pair of parties that have fewer differences than my left and right hand, we are forced to choose between two candidates in which neither are adequate representatives of the best interests of the people.


Well, that's not news. We can add the tyranny of the majority thing, and it's been that way for ages.


There is no need to kid ourselves and say that the government is about service more than career anymore, yet we do nothing to hinder the power grabs and monopolizing of government by these people who are keenly interested in continuing their careers. That means that we have allowed a government to form that is:

1) only representative of the elite class, Bush and Kerry were immensely wealthy and have no idea of the interests of the majority of the people in this nation, let alone the interest to serve them
2) distant, as it has become so structured and bureaucratic that even if one does manage to figuratively fight through the sea of lobbyists, your congressman still won't listen to your small wallet
3) entrenched, very few of the members of congress came even close losing their seat, and many ran unopposed, and with current redistricting and PAC donations, it is unlikely to change


The bureaucracy itself is far larger and more powerful than the political system of elections, executive, legislature, and judicial branches. The bureaucracy is a branch unto itself, and by its very nature represents only itself.

You're all talking about tyranny of the majority. No current "democracy" has a workable solution to that problem.

No, we are talking about tyranny by a very, very small minority who has the resources to dominate this government. It monopoly of democracy much like in capitalism.

I would say that maybe 20% of the voting population actually felt that they were voting for someone who truly represented them, whereas the other 80% voted for the lesser of two evils or who ever ran for their party.

So, what is the primary objective of this elite uber-class, to gain more money? Or more power? And what is the power they seek, to control the illiterate, the apathetic, the poor?

Well, it's kind of hard to replace anything now. You either have to play the game by the rules, or try to force a new set of rules.

Well, it's kind of hard to replace anything now. You either have to play the game by the rules, or try to force a new set of rules.

Very true, but there are steps that can be taken. We need to end this ridiculous redistricting by congress, institute term limits, and make a huge overhaul of the campaign finance system. But good luck getting government to limit its own power.

Really? I thought you only voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry?
Yes. I did. And your point???

Good morning Eutrusca.

The point to my argument is that the government is more distant and protected than ever before. Due to a pair of parties that have fewer differences than my left and right hand, we are forced to choose between two candidates in which neither are adequate representatives of the best interests of the people. There is no need to kid ourselves and say that the government is about service more than career anymore, yet we do nothing to hinder the power grabs and monopolizing of government by these people who are keenly interested in continuing their careers. That means that we have allowed a government to form that is:

1) only representative of the elite class, Bush and Kerry were immensely wealthy and have no idea of the interests of the majority of the people in this nation, let alone the interest to serve them
2) distant, as it has become so structured and bureaucratic that even if one does manage to figuratively fight through the sea of lobbyists, your congressman still won't listen to your small wallet
3) entrenched, very few of the members of congress came even close losing their seat, and many ran unopposed, and with current redistricting and PAC donations, it is unlikely to change

I am surprised that you feel represented by this government. Despite your backing of GW you seem to be a very shrewd person.
Me? "Shrewd?" LOL! Well, thank you, I think. :D

Ok. I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

The issue of the influence of money in politics has been with us for a long, long time. I don't see any easy solutions. Until a marjoity fo the populace gets pissed off enough about it to take some sort of action, I don't see it changing either.

As to my "backing GW," as I have mentioned that was due more to my dispising Kerry than to being "pro-Bush." Yet I still feel that my government represents me, as much as it's possible to be represented when you're old, disabled, and poor. :)

Me? "Shrewd?" LOL! Well, thank you, I think. :D

Ok. I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

The issue of the influence of money in politics has been with us for a long, long time. I don't see any easy solutions. Until a marjoity fo the populace gets pissed off enough about it to take some sort of action, I don't see it changing either.

It is more than a problem of money, although that is a huge part of it. It is also a problem of careerism, the political parties playing off of each other to form a monopoly, lack of accountability in our government and corporations, and an absolutely appalling amount of apathy towards the declining situation.

As to my "backing GW," as I have mentioned that was due more to my dispising Kerry than to being "pro-Bush." Yet I still feel that my government represents me, as much as it's possible to be represented when you're old, disabled, and poor. :)

Get with the program Eutrusca:

John Kerry is the FUTURE OF AMERICA

:p

Which we aren't. We're a republic- True democracies don't have Congress or Senates, we were modeled after Rome for the most part.

Remember the Pledge of Allegiance we all had to learn?

"...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

We've never been a democracy.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Democracy is 100% majority rule, in a republic, the government has much more control on making decisions that effect everyone.

If you can figure out how to get out of having a two-party system, many problems of this sort will fade.

Of course, the two parties that exist have a vested interest in keeping it a two-party system, so they certainly aren't going to pass any legislation that would encourage further parties (read: "competition").

Even just proportional representation would help.

How about banning campaigning and allocating x amount of money for advertising for candidates? or not having to pay the television corp for advertising I think they make enough money that they could show campaign spots for free. Seems to me those with the most get the most exposure and after watching the rallys on TV this year it scared me as it was more a pagent and rah rah to the captain rather then addressing of issues.

And allow those who want to run to run, but realizing that may have a backlash of tons of people running and depleting the funds for campaign perhaps having to have so many signatures on a petition? Don't know really just tossing out some Ideas

Get with the program Eutrusca:

John Kerry is the FUTURE OF AMERICA

:p
SHRIEK!!! RUN AWAY! :D

Very true, but there are steps that can be taken. We need to end this ridiculous redistricting by congress, institute term limits, and make a huge overhaul of the campaign finance system. But good luck getting government to limit its own power.

For once VO, I couldn't agree more. However, I am at a loss as to how to overhaul campaign finance without getting the government involved much more than I would like.

the fundamental problems of America's government?

I think we can agree that the majority of the voting population cast their vote in the presidential election as a vote against someone rather than for someone. This means that most of the nation could not find a applicable representative. And not only did they not voice their outrage that the government has become so distant and authoritarian, but they showed up to support this abomination of democracy in record numbers!

I can, in all honesty, say that I do not trust the government to represent me, and I would wager that most of you do not either. So why are we not doing anything about it? Are we sheep? Are we too concerned with conformity to look out for our own best interests? Are we naturally predisposed to submit to authority and sacrifice our own autonomy?

I at one point in my life had a great deal more respect for the human race, but the democracy in this country has shown me how high some people can rise, and just how low the rest can be.

The problem is that, although we all agree that current politicians are corrupt or at best simply don't represent us, we can't agree on what we want from them anyway. I'm for cutting spending, privatising SSA, reducing Gov. powers, repealing the Patriot Act, limiting damages in liability suits, completely seperating church and state, gradually easing into open markets rather than instant free trade agreements, enforcing boarder and immigration laws (no amnesty for illegal immigrants, aka pandering to the hispanic vote), ending "affirmative action" and being more rigerous about prosecuting violations of discrimination law for publically held businesses and Gov. employers and a host of other things that people from both sides of the eisle currently disagree with.

If we can't agree on what we want, how can anyone represent us, assuming we could even find someone with suffient character to be worthy of our vote?

The problem is that, although we all agree that current politicians are corrupt or at best simply don't represent us, we can't agree on what we want from them anyway. I'm for cutting spending, privatising SSA, reducing Gov. powers, repealing the Patriot Act, limiting damages in liability suits, completely seperating church and state, gradually easing into open markets rather than instant free trade agreements, enforcing boarder and immigration laws (no amnesty for illegal immigrants, aka pandering to the hispanic vote), ending "affirmative action" and being more rigerous about prosecuting violations of discrimination law for publically held businesses and Gov. employers and a host of other things that people from both sides of the eisle currently disagree with.

If we can't agree on what we want, how can anyone represent us, assuming we could even find someone with suffient character to be worthy of our vote?
free trade is a scam that is only hurting American workers--wake up