Agree with all this Robert. Shut didn’t hurt the electorate most of all. But the problem with the government is we only get to vote between 2 and four years after the crime the gop typically creates. People forget quickly. As the Media distracts , people feel beholden to their family and party ties, people get confused.
Agree with all this Robert. Shut didn’t hurt the electorate most of all. But the problem with the government is we only get to vote between 2 and four years after the crime the gop typically creates. People forget quickly. As the Media distracts , people feel beholden to their family and party ties, people get confused.
If we, like the Brit’s and Denmark , had a vote of no confidence in govt and a vote to disband the govt until a coalition agreement to lead is reached , we would not be paying for dysfunction. This is an improvement to democracy we badly need. It would not allow irresponsible politicians to remain in office. We pay twice , once because lobbyists corrupt the politicians who continue to stuff their pockets , and twice because they stay power even as they wait to be voted out of office and get nothing accomplished. We give them a free pass. This has to be changed. Not sure how that could happen but the constitution did not foresee this happening in colonial times whereas the more recently established democracies like Denmark did. Go see the movie Borgen for a lesson in modern governance. Thanks. J.
Jay, I don't think it's that easy. The UK, France, Italy, and other democracies have had their fair share and more of incompetent leaders. They can get a vote of non-confidence, but the next guy may be just as bad, and we have seen that. Democrats do have to step up the publicity about the shut-down being 100% the fault of Republicans and we should not be too particular about who is included in that. If there were really "good" Republicans in the House, they would have stood up by now and made some noise. They haven't! Blaming just Charlie (I mean Little Kevvy) McCarthy is a bad move because he did not pull this off by himself. He is just not quite crooked enough. He is getting there, though. Trump and Kump are working the strings behind the curtain and not so far behind the curtain. The spotlight needs to be directed on Trump and his handlers (Yes, Trump is not bright enough either, and he is not getting better).
Again I’m not sure how this could be accomplished. Equalizing party representation might be one way. Another is ranked choice voting that could bring coalition of governments together to agree on principle. Maine has already voted ranked choice. Other states need to follow.
Jay Corvan, I agree with you that we need to do something different but I agree with Ruth that it is not that easy. We can make small or enormous changes to the process, but I believe they won't make a lick of difference because the root of the problem is rampant individual and collective egos (such as in parties, donor circles, etc.). If we want better outcomes, elect leaders with smaller egos.
Jim George, yes true I agree. I think we need to dig deeper than we traditionally have. What I am talking about is compassion and strong feeling of connectedness to all human beings (well other beings too). And therefore, one has little need to harm others or neglect the harm of others. Role model that in more families and other institutions, then we will see more rapid change.
M Tree --Yes, thank you. The way we think as individuals and what we believe about ourself and our fellow humans is what drives our actions. We need to upgrade to a new OS before we self destruct.
Margaret, I think it is an interesting idea, but I haven't read enough about the pros and cons. My first reaction is that it may give more opportunity to cheat to those who wish to do so, but I don't know if that's true. Also, I wonder if the concept obscures the fact that an individual person must mostly follow the party wishes (well big donor wishes). I think we need to tie individuals more to their large lack of power because they must mostly vote the party line. So that's a concern for me also.
Hey m tree. Not the issue here. Dintbes tnthiz to devolve into personality issues. That’s a problem we can’t solve. But remember Nothing worth doing is easy. Clearly what’s set up to regulate the party system in place is set up to favor the predominant parties. The question is what’s the best way to solve it. Will those predominant parties ride the wave to the end of democracy so they can crow that they won the battle but we all lost the war. Not such a good end result. I’m against that happening because it’s too hard to change the system.
My thought options today ( ha) are to 1) either fix it through the party system or 2) to fix it within the states that could then transform the voting apparatus, so that means .
Jay Corvan, nope don't know what you mean, hahaha. I think what you are saying, is it isn't important to bringing about positive, sustainable change to replace those not serving the public with genuine public servants by carefully evaluating them before electing them.
No that’s no the point. What I was saying is of course personality matters on candidates but many time’s personality isn’t clear and people who have been elected reverse course. In other words they lie to get in office then switch sides. Thrn stuff their pockets. Even if they don’t lie they stuff pockets when corporations play both sides , plus candidates are allowed to keep campaign contribution excesses. And Then…. it takes 2,4,6 years to vote them out. That’s just too long. If we had a vote of no confidence option they could be called out on the Matt immediately.
Well I don’t know how to fix this exactly. This is something other countries have worked out abd far it from me to understand the mechanism involved. It’s probably requires a restructuring of our democratic infrastructure and may require constitutional articles. But it requires the opposition parties to create a coalition before they govern. Then if and when they blow through those agreements and violate the agreement , as they usually do, they emergency brakes are solid , they disband the government and reorganize their coalitions. This way all parties get done of what they want abd horse trading is done and reported on before they govern.
Jay, it sounds good, but it has lots of problems too, like small parties creeping in around the edges to throw everything off. They have to calculate percentages as we do. I am not sure that is any better than what we have. It seems to me what we have could work if all three branches of our government were functioning as they are described in the Constitution. Lately, our Supreme court has decided it is more important than the other branches even though its justices are less than stellar jurists. Because the legislature has chosen to be a kindergarten playground for Republicans, the executive branch has had to move into executive orders to get anything done for the people of this country. That could be fixed if there were a desire to fix it.
Also I think that the creeping around the edges is a problem the dems have capitalized on. The Democratic Party is not of one solid block now. It’s really three parties , maybe more. There are the progressives , the far left bomb throwers, and the solid middle road dems. The dem party has tried and succeeded keeping them under the tent but many are unhappy and many legitimate interests get bulldozed by “ creeping party “ worries. Why not split the party as it should be.
The gop should do the same. We are evolving and we should realize it ! Far right bomb throwers , conservative old school gop , middle Indy’s. All these could be coalition parties. Even if we can’t find a way to do this in national party system , at least we could have transparency within a party system that horse trades with its different factions that everyone can see !
My question is probably ridiculous, but aren't the majority of Americans right in the middle? I mean centrist means in the center of the spectrum and I was always taught by my mom and pop that most of the people in this country whether they are republicans or democrats agree or more things than they disagree on. I don't know how that would change anything. I guess I always thought of the silent majority as being the ones in the middle.
Hmmm. Not sure even with all three working that it solves the money issues , government representation for sale. And the time lag between overt misrepresentation and elections.
Of course citizens united repeal would help 🙂 but still there’s a lot of dark money influence out there that is contrary to electorate interests. Corporations are not people. Banning 401c4’s ( political non profits) sound only solve some of the problems.
Yes thanks Maureen. I’m somewhat aware of this I don’t know the mechanism for change, but maybe that’s the problem that we need to address. I’m not sure a complete restructuring is necessary but we might have to convince the two parties ( one of which is actually now valid) to allow for this or face the obvious dissolution of democracy, door shuttered. It would be in the interests of other parties , Green Party, indeed deny party, and the old conservative block. Having only one live party is as close to democratic death as you can get. The other party has devolved into nihilistic bomb throwers. But there really are other parties out there. But they’ve been trampled by the dems.
If we gave all existing American parties a level seat at the table then we’d let people decide which party gets their vote then we’d have a Working government. I know this sounds naive. As it is now we are looking at the obvious choice of having the best government money can buy ala lobbying , or no government at all via gop nihilism. Not too Much of a choice and the dems are jerking us around and pretending they are the only voice that matters. I can say by observation that younger kids hate the party system , and are angry that no one is allowing their interests to be realized. I’m angry about this too, and I’m no admirer of an all or nothing governance . It’s obvious that the two party system is fractured and we need to apply a splint to the limb. I think leveling the party system is one answer.
Agree with all this Robert. Shut didn’t hurt the electorate most of all. But the problem with the government is we only get to vote between 2 and four years after the crime the gop typically creates. People forget quickly. As the Media distracts , people feel beholden to their family and party ties, people get confused.
If we, like the Brit’s and Denmark , had a vote of no confidence in govt and a vote to disband the govt until a coalition agreement to lead is reached , we would not be paying for dysfunction. This is an improvement to democracy we badly need. It would not allow irresponsible politicians to remain in office. We pay twice , once because lobbyists corrupt the politicians who continue to stuff their pockets , and twice because they stay power even as they wait to be voted out of office and get nothing accomplished. We give them a free pass. This has to be changed. Not sure how that could happen but the constitution did not foresee this happening in colonial times whereas the more recently established democracies like Denmark did. Go see the movie Borgen for a lesson in modern governance. Thanks. J.
I like this idea of having a vote of no confidence. I don't have any confidence that these small band of republicans will work for our Democracy.
Peggy, and the larger band of Republicans isn't working too hard for this nation either.
Jay, I don't think it's that easy. The UK, France, Italy, and other democracies have had their fair share and more of incompetent leaders. They can get a vote of non-confidence, but the next guy may be just as bad, and we have seen that. Democrats do have to step up the publicity about the shut-down being 100% the fault of Republicans and we should not be too particular about who is included in that. If there were really "good" Republicans in the House, they would have stood up by now and made some noise. They haven't! Blaming just Charlie (I mean Little Kevvy) McCarthy is a bad move because he did not pull this off by himself. He is just not quite crooked enough. He is getting there, though. Trump and Kump are working the strings behind the curtain and not so far behind the curtain. The spotlight needs to be directed on Trump and his handlers (Yes, Trump is not bright enough either, and he is not getting better).
Well put. A change in government allowing votes of no confidence will help.
A further restriction on religious interference in government is necessary.
Again I’m not sure how this could be accomplished. Equalizing party representation might be one way. Another is ranked choice voting that could bring coalition of governments together to agree on principle. Maine has already voted ranked choice. Other states need to follow.
Jay Corvan, I agree with you that we need to do something different but I agree with Ruth that it is not that easy. We can make small or enormous changes to the process, but I believe they won't make a lick of difference because the root of the problem is rampant individual and collective egos (such as in parties, donor circles, etc.). If we want better outcomes, elect leaders with smaller egos.
So we need a cultural change. We need to emphasize compromise and tolerance as family values as important as freedom and responsibility.
Jim George, yes true I agree. I think we need to dig deeper than we traditionally have. What I am talking about is compassion and strong feeling of connectedness to all human beings (well other beings too). And therefore, one has little need to harm others or neglect the harm of others. Role model that in more families and other institutions, then we will see more rapid change.
M Tree --Yes, thank you. The way we think as individuals and what we believe about ourself and our fellow humans is what drives our actions. We need to upgrade to a new OS before we self destruct.
G.P. Baltimore, well said!
Yes, ranked choice voting seems to work well in states where it has been implemented.
Margaret, I think it is an interesting idea, but I haven't read enough about the pros and cons. My first reaction is that it may give more opportunity to cheat to those who wish to do so, but I don't know if that's true. Also, I wonder if the concept obscures the fact that an individual person must mostly follow the party wishes (well big donor wishes). I think we need to tie individuals more to their large lack of power because they must mostly vote the party line. So that's a concern for me also.
Hey m tree. Not the issue here. Dintbes tnthiz to devolve into personality issues. That’s a problem we can’t solve. But remember Nothing worth doing is easy. Clearly what’s set up to regulate the party system in place is set up to favor the predominant parties. The question is what’s the best way to solve it. Will those predominant parties ride the wave to the end of democracy so they can crow that they won the battle but we all lost the war. Not such a good end result. I’m against that happening because it’s too hard to change the system.
My thought options today ( ha) are to 1) either fix it through the party system or 2) to fix it within the states that could then transform the voting apparatus, so that means .
Oh sorry about the spelling. I’m not checking my writing enough. Of course it’s my phones fault!
Jay. Corvan, can you elaborate? haha I am not sure what you mean by "Dintbes tnthiz".
Hkjbbg b. Yes?
Jay Corvan, nope don't know what you mean, hahaha. I think what you are saying, is it isn't important to bringing about positive, sustainable change to replace those not serving the public with genuine public servants by carefully evaluating them before electing them.
No that’s no the point. What I was saying is of course personality matters on candidates but many time’s personality isn’t clear and people who have been elected reverse course. In other words they lie to get in office then switch sides. Thrn stuff their pockets. Even if they don’t lie they stuff pockets when corporations play both sides , plus candidates are allowed to keep campaign contribution excesses. And Then…. it takes 2,4,6 years to vote them out. That’s just too long. If we had a vote of no confidence option they could be called out on the Matt immediately.
Jay Corvan, kick the pocket-stuffing bums out immediately. I agree with that!
Well I don’t know how to fix this exactly. This is something other countries have worked out abd far it from me to understand the mechanism involved. It’s probably requires a restructuring of our democratic infrastructure and may require constitutional articles. But it requires the opposition parties to create a coalition before they govern. Then if and when they blow through those agreements and violate the agreement , as they usually do, they emergency brakes are solid , they disband the government and reorganize their coalitions. This way all parties get done of what they want abd horse trading is done and reported on before they govern.
Jay, it sounds good, but it has lots of problems too, like small parties creeping in around the edges to throw everything off. They have to calculate percentages as we do. I am not sure that is any better than what we have. It seems to me what we have could work if all three branches of our government were functioning as they are described in the Constitution. Lately, our Supreme court has decided it is more important than the other branches even though its justices are less than stellar jurists. Because the legislature has chosen to be a kindergarten playground for Republicans, the executive branch has had to move into executive orders to get anything done for the people of this country. That could be fixed if there were a desire to fix it.
Also I think that the creeping around the edges is a problem the dems have capitalized on. The Democratic Party is not of one solid block now. It’s really three parties , maybe more. There are the progressives , the far left bomb throwers, and the solid middle road dems. The dem party has tried and succeeded keeping them under the tent but many are unhappy and many legitimate interests get bulldozed by “ creeping party “ worries. Why not split the party as it should be.
The gop should do the same. We are evolving and we should realize it ! Far right bomb throwers , conservative old school gop , middle Indy’s. All these could be coalition parties. Even if we can’t find a way to do this in national party system , at least we could have transparency within a party system that horse trades with its different factions that everyone can see !
My question is probably ridiculous, but aren't the majority of Americans right in the middle? I mean centrist means in the center of the spectrum and I was always taught by my mom and pop that most of the people in this country whether they are republicans or democrats agree or more things than they disagree on. I don't know how that would change anything. I guess I always thought of the silent majority as being the ones in the middle.
Hmmm. Not sure even with all three working that it solves the money issues , government representation for sale. And the time lag between overt misrepresentation and elections.
Of course citizens united repeal would help 🙂 but still there’s a lot of dark money influence out there that is contrary to electorate interests. Corporations are not people. Banning 401c4’s ( political non profits) sound only solve some of the problems.
It takes a parliamentary system & a minority government to push through a vote of "no confidence."
America's 2 party system makes a minority government impossible.
Maureen; funny, as we already have 'minority rule'! The money 💰 rules!
Yes thanks Maureen. I’m somewhat aware of this I don’t know the mechanism for change, but maybe that’s the problem that we need to address. I’m not sure a complete restructuring is necessary but we might have to convince the two parties ( one of which is actually now valid) to allow for this or face the obvious dissolution of democracy, door shuttered. It would be in the interests of other parties , Green Party, indeed deny party, and the old conservative block. Having only one live party is as close to democratic death as you can get. The other party has devolved into nihilistic bomb throwers. But there really are other parties out there. But they’ve been trampled by the dems.
If we gave all existing American parties a level seat at the table then we’d let people decide which party gets their vote then we’d have a Working government. I know this sounds naive. As it is now we are looking at the obvious choice of having the best government money can buy ala lobbying , or no government at all via gop nihilism. Not too Much of a choice and the dems are jerking us around and pretending they are the only voice that matters. I can say by observation that younger kids hate the party system , and are angry that no one is allowing their interests to be realized. I’m angry about this too, and I’m no admirer of an all or nothing governance . It’s obvious that the two party system is fractured and we need to apply a splint to the limb. I think leveling the party system is one answer.