h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Let's face it, America is already a two-party state. Let's make it official.
Let's despense with the pretenses with elections with the baby-kissing, hand-shaking, corporate-butt-kissing, and voting for "George" or "Bill" because of pseudo-populist sex appeal.
The judicial branch is already
undemocratic, so it will remain unchanged.
The president will be appointed by either the Republican Party or Democrat. Each would alternate by term--unless there is some other agreement (eg two consecutive terms for two consecutive terms; 3 terms with a moderate, 1 term with an ideologue; etc).
Congresspeople will appoint their sucessors. Those who don't, will have appointments made by their respective parties. Replacements for indies or (political) minorities will be chosen by Rep or Dem by an alternating process.
To get state support for the passing of the necessary amendments, the same could be repeated by the state governments and their respective parties.
The two parties will get new members as they wish. Assessments of popular will will be accomplished by polls and consultants.
In 20 years--long after the incumbants cared, the two parties will merge into the "American Party" (or perhaps the "Patriotic American People's Party")--power of the members based on a 50-50 deal.
It *is* available
http://hosting.veri...ng&tld=COM&x=21&y=9
10 yrs. @ 9.95 a year - amazingly, none of the extensions has been taken [thumbwax, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Which Dem? There's so many of 'em
http://www.tealeafmag.com/ketjan04.htm
Learn about 50% of the two- party system. A description of the dems [tealeaf magazine, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Did you come here to invent ideas, or pretend to be controversial by espousing your political views in an inappropriate venue? Not interested in the latter, thanks. |
|
| |
Isn't the heading "Public: Government: Alternative Forms"? |
|
| |
It's kind of funny (and kind of pathetic as well) how I could tell who the author of the idea is from the title of the 'invention' on the main page. |
|
| |
All the easier to avoid me if you choose! |
|
| |
Actually this system would be an oligarchy. The idea does contain any element of social status through birth, simply a self-perpetuating system detatched from the people. |
|
| |
To create an aristocracy from the American system I would instead recommend banning non-lawyers from both public office and directorships, restricting a legal education to the children of lawyers and making legal qualifications easier for less intelligent off-spring of this freshly defined ruling class. |
|
| |
However there is no invention here. |
|
| |
Pretty much baked. If there ever is another revolution, it will be very, very ugly, and probably not succeed, what with all of the military power on the govt's side nowadays. An oddity if there ever was one: the 'century of the people' sees the most bloodshed of any in history, but brings in enough upheaval for a few decades of democratic development, which slowly erodes as the new powerful readjust to the new playing field. |
|
| |
When they've mastered and manipulated the new rules of the game, hopefully someone will be able to stand against it. |
|
| |
A good revolution every few hundred years is a good thing, but the wars of the people are bloodier than those of kings. |
|
| |
USSR and Iraq were somewhat different. The Soviets fought a lengthy and bloody civil war. Further, while the Russians paid a terrible price for communism, it certainly coincided with their industralization and rise as a world power--the only one to really compete with the US. |
|
| |
As for Iraq, I attribute Sadaam's success with Western and Sunni oil Arab aid. Without such, the Shiites could have very well had him for breakfast in the early 80's. |
|
| |
Doesn't oligarchy imply heredity--at least as much as monarchy? |
|
| |
As for lawyers, my proposal doesn't exclude them. The US would still have a Supreme court, and while it might have some of it's powers clipped by a Congress and President--who like the current SC justices not have an electorate who could vote them out--could still maintain some vigor. |
|
| |
Still, it would be meritocratic insofar that if you gain the favor of those in power, your power too would rise--regardless of who you were proffessionally. |
|
| |
This government would be responsive insofar as to co-op revolutions and attractions that democracies in the rest of the world pose. |
|
| |
There are a number of countries in the world which are, argueably, more democratic than the US is even now, yet Americans by and large have no wish to emulate them. |
|
| |
As for the invention, aristocracy as a theory is likely as old as The Aristotle. The invention lies in how it might be attractive for those in power to effect what I advocate. Democrat or Republican, Pres, govnrs, or Congress--no one is left out. |
|
| |
I suppose it would be a triumpherate (msp?) of politicians, bureacrats, the military, industry, and a little of the church and special interest groups--most of the later, while likely very political, have little interest in partisan or electoral politics. |
|
| |
The Soviets? Nah. I was over there. They could never truly compete; their losses over the decades were unsustainable. |
|
| |
A croissant (the 1st). "...Facing reality...". It makes sense to me. |
|
| |
P.S. I didn't even read who wrote this before voting/annotating. I should have known. |
|
| |
I have never had it explained to me why the US sytem of democracy (electoral college) is preferable to a simple 'one man, one vote' system. It seems to me that that is the only real democracy. Can anyone explain? |
|
| |
Already ahead of you. In a while I'll be posting my alt to the EC. |
|
| |
So Arnie, Larry, and Gary are running for guv'nor of California. I'm telling you all you RepubliCrats. You can avoid this sort of hassle. No more elitist derisions on the state of politics in the US. You can entrench your two-party system in a way to keep the rubes out and the experts in. |
|
| |
What's truly necessary to have an aristocracy, regardless of how you want to split hairs over the definition, is a wealthy, hereditary ruling class that purports to represent the highest cultural achievements of the nation. At the moment, politicians in the US squabble publicly over points of cultural and social disagreement, only to conduct oligarchic backroom deals that are only vaguely connected to their public personas. The fact that American politicians are still duking it out over so many cultural issues, and that they are also charged with the day-to-day administration of corporate justice, makes it difficult for them to be real aristocrats. So here's the idea- have one new, third party , composed of carefully chosen representatives from the major parties, take over the day-to-day management of the empire, dividing up all the pork in an orderly and civilized fashion, freeing the Democrats and Republicans to become absolute caricatures of themselves. Rather than showing up to hear cases or vote on bills, the Justices and Senators would become a real American aristocracy, carrying on messy, culturally charged feuds played out between football teams owned by opposing parties, professional wrestlers that endorse opposing candidates, etc... of course, the ritual of voting would continue to be carried out, but it would be reduced, politically, to the significance of voting on "american idol," freeing us from the expense of careful election monitoring and the associated legal battles. |
|
| |
[billumberg] Brilliant! Fishbone for the original, I'm afraid. Not for advocacy, but because I arbitrarily dislike it. |
|
| |
//arbitrarily dislike it// |
|
| |
Changing to a two person presidency, even changing every 4 years, would (I think) interfere with the US Constitution |
|
| |