# Forms of government and political systems.



## Duke Nukem (Oct 4, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> But what if somebody tries to take away democracy when you're out at Taco Bell or w/e



The US is, at least on paper, a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately it's more of an oligarchy in practice.

Apart from that, though, the kinds of people who say "don't get a gun, call the cops" are often the kinds of people who also say things like "cops are bad because Ferguson."

Edit-was redirected from gun control thread, for some reason.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 4, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> The US is, at least on paper, a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately it's more of an oligarchy in practice.



That's a fairly common thing to say, but fairly bogus.  A republic is, by definition, "[a] state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers."  This distinguishes it from empires ruled by an emperor, monarchies, or totalitarian states.  The most common form of republic in what is currently considered the civilized world is a representative democracy.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 5, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> That's a fairly common thing to say, but fairly bogus.  A republic is, by definition, "[a] state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers."  This distinguishes it from empires ruled by an emperor, monarchies, or totalitarian states.  The most common form of republic in what is currently considered the civilized world is a representative democracy.



I've always taken "republic" to simply mean a country without an elected head of state. The UK meets the definition you've established above, but nobody would call it a republic.

So while being a republic doesn't require being a democracy, or vice versa, they are very very far from exclusive.

I would love to know what it is that Duke thinks precludes America from being a democracy, and whether he could name any contemporary examples of democracies.


----------



## DNJACK (Oct 5, 2015)

The UK is a monarchy. The head of state is the queen.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 5, 2015)

DNJACK said:


> The UK is a monarchy. The head of state is the queen.



Did you seriously think this was news to me?

The definition @AnOminous quoted discusses the "supreme power", not the office of head of state. Nobody with even a passing familiarity with the UK's political institutions would conclude that the Queen holds "supreme power". If we were looking for "supreme power" in the UK it would be located either in the Cabinet or in Parliament - but since Cabinet is ultimately subject to appointment and removal by Parliament, it's hard to make a case that it's anywhere other than Parliament. So we would be forced to conclude based on this definition that the UK is both a monarchy and a republic, which seems odd. That's why I prefer the "non-hereditary head of state" definition.

A discussion of power doesn't need to reference the head of state, because it's very common for the office of head of state, be it monarchical, appointed or elected, to lack any significant power, let alone "supreme power". The idea that the office of head of state is necessarily the most powerful person in a country seems like an artifact of a very Americocentric conception of politics.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 5, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> So we would be forced to conclude based on this definition that the UK is both a monarchy and a republic, which seems odd.



So long as the nominal supreme authority lies with a monarch, even if that authority is as thin as the paper it is written on, the UK would remain technically not a monarchyrepublic.  Indeed, those who seek to do away with the monarchy refer to their political position as "republicanism" and refer to replacing the monarchy with a republic.

However, the UK is a republic in all but name.  The same would apply to other constitutional monarchies, at least those where the nominal power of the purported monarch remains effectively ceremonial.

The United States, commonly regarded as a republic, is also certainly a democracy.  In fact, there are more democratically elected offices at the local, state and federal government than, perhaps, in any nation in the world.

The Constitution also contains numerous actually anti-democratic features specifically to guard against the worst problems of a so-called "pure" democracy, which would amount to mob rule, a form of government which has, in fact, never actually existed.  If only a "pure" democracy constituted a democratic form of government, there would be no such thing on the planet.

Among those anti-democratic features are the Article V process for amending the Constitution itself, which essentially puts it in a lockbox of sorts beyond meddling by public whim.  Only a sustained political will over a lengthy period of time can change the Constitution itself.

Additionally, having unelected, lifetime appointed judges have supreme authority over interpreting that Constitution stops radical changes from overtaking interpretation.  Despite this, even the most "activist" decisions of the Court generally follow rather than precede public opinion.

ETA:  Correcting mistake.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 5, 2015)

When I hear the word democracy I think of direct democracy like in ancient Athens. I understand the difference between the two, and I kind of like the Greek model, unfortunately it's not practical in a society of 300 million. It's kind of a cool concept, though, and has been done on a small scale in certain townships.

The idea that the first thousand people who show up get to help make the laws sounds appealing when compared to having career politicians with four decades of not doing anything else.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 5, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> When I hear the word democracy I think of direct democracy like in ancient Athens. I understand the difference between the two, and I kind of like the Greek model, unfortunately it's not practical in a society of 300 million. It's kind of a cool concept, though, and has been done on a small scale in certain townships.



There's a reason we call it "direct democracy" as opposed to just "democracy".



AnOminous said:


> So long as the nominal supreme authority lies with a monarch, even if that authority is as thin as the paper it is written on, the UK would remain technically not a monarchy



I assume you mean technically not a republic?


----------



## Strelok (Oct 6, 2015)

Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 9, 2015)

Strelok said:


> Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.



On a large scale, perhaps not. On the other hand, there's way too much money involved in modern politics for the average Joe to have any real impact, no matter how he votes. And there's so much corruption within the two-party system, that it has hijacked representative democracy and made it practically unworkable in its own right.

People who want real, positive change in anything are sadly locked out by various factors.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 9, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> On a large scale, perhaps not. On the other hand, there's way too much money involved in modern politics for the average Joe to have any real impact, no matter how he votes. And there's so much corruption within the two-party system, that it has hijacked representative democracy and made it practically unworkable in its own right.
> 
> People who want real, positive change in anything are sadly locked out by various factors.


I've noticed that most people who espouse this point of view, that they have no power due to big money and that the peoples' voice doesn't matter, tend to just sit on their ass during the elections, ironically giving away their own voting power in the process and creating a self fulfilling prophecy in the process.

And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 9, 2015)

Adamska said:


> I've noticed that most people who espouse this point of view, that they have no power due to big money and that the peoples' voice doesn't matter, tend to just sit on their ass during the elections, ironically giving away their own voting power in the process and creating a self fulfilling prophecy in the process.
> 
> And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.



Don't get me wrong, I do vote, but I don't expect it to have any real impact on anything. I honestly don't think it's going to matter what I do though, but I will vote just to take that talking point away from anyone who would say otherwise.

No it doesn't, we need a viable third party to break the cycle and bring in some actual competition and new ideas into the mix, as opposed to rehashing the same ones over and over every four years. Sure, one might argue that there's other choices on the ballot, but that's just for show, and people are more afraid of "not being counted" than going for the one they actually want. Also, local opinion doesn't really count much in the long run, except for maybe city/county elections, and those tend to be less corrupted by party politics as a whole.

I'd rather vote for what I want, and NOT get it, than something I don't want, and have a chance of getting it.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Oct 9, 2015)

Strelok said:


> Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California[...]


Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.


----------



## BT 075 (Oct 9, 2015)




----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 9, 2015)

Satan said:


>



This. Fucking this.

That being said, just because you're not a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean you're a terrorist.

Unfortunately, that concept is lost on 99% of people it seems.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 9, 2015)

Adamska said:


> And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.



'Disguised coalitions' are all very well, but actual coalitions are better, not least that voters can very easily choose which party in an actual coalition to support with their vote.



ToroidalBoat said:


> Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.



Land area is irrelevant to 99% of all political decisions.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 9, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> 'Disguised coalitions' are all very well, but actual coalitions are better, not least that voters can very easily choose which party in an actual coalition to support with their vote.



I dunno about that considering that in the UK, minority governments (which is usually the only reason a coalition forms anyway) tend to not last long . There's also the matter that you get the same effect as a two party element anyways, since to get shit done in a coalition, you often have to water down or compromise your platform. And yes, I know that politics there differs from the US in that they can call elections early.



Dudeofteenage said:


> Land area is irrelevant to 99% of all political decisions.



Population on the other hand does when it comes to applying direct democracy, mainly because the bigger the group, the longer it takes for them to decide on a point. Besides, @ToroidalBoat  was speaking from an economic point of view I think.



Duke Nukem said:


> This. Fucking this.
> 
> That being said, just because you're not a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean you're a terrorist.
> 
> Unfortunately, that concept is lost on 99% of people it seems.



Where the hell do you live where this is the case? Because here third partiers are at worst seen as wasting their vote (when realistically you only waste it by not voting IMO).

As an aside, for those claiming a third party would make things better... nope. This is because of one part precedent (Third parties often get most of their ideas absorbed/coopted or sometimes form the new second party after killing the old one) and mechanically it doesn't work (In big elections, it's all or nothing).


----------



## RepQuest (Oct 9, 2015)

Strelok said:


> Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.


California's attitude toward democracy really soured my opinion on the system as a whole. The problem with direct democracy is that people will usually vote to limit their own personal freedom, not to increase it. If states have constitutions that can be changed with a simple majority vote on a referendum, such as California, then what is the point of having constitutionally-guaranteed rights? Of course, California's system of propositions (what California calls its referenda and ballot measures) also allows people to vote for bond measures to fund government programs and tax law, the latter of which are usually tax increases. The government programs proposed are usually unsustainable, even with the high tax rates that California already has, which, of course, people will vote for, because they assume that those increases won't affect them. It's shit like this that has convinced me that there needs to be limits on the franchise.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 9, 2015)

ToroidalBoat said:


> Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.



If you let an uneducated (or even educated) populace vote to get free shit and then also vote not to pay taxes for it, you get stupid shit.

You also get stupid shit like three strikes laws, also an unfunded mandate (Prop 36) passed by initiative in California.

Then they also had the wisdom to enact "reform" in the form of term limits, which means their legislature now consists of amateur noobs who have no idea what they're doing and get led around by the nose by the unelected lobbyists who basically write California's legislation.

Throw in a near-permanent supermajority of Democrats and you have a recipe for disaster.  

That's not a comment on Democrats.  One party rule by any party is generally disastrous.


----------



## Falcon Lord (Oct 9, 2015)

It really annoys me when people say campaign donations mean democracy is a sham and the US is the same as North Korea.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 9, 2015)

Falcon Lord said:


> It really annoys me when people say campaign donations mean democracy is a sham and the US is the same as North Korea.



No country is the same as North Korea, but the excess of money in politics is a corrupting force. It simply makes it so the haves get to influence things far more than the have-nots. Unfortunately, this was probably inevitable.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 10, 2015)

RepQuest said:


> The government programs proposed are usually unsustainable, even with the high tax rates that California already has



I'm confused, I thought the Californians voted themselves low taxes in the 80s and that's why you have so many unfunded mandates.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 10, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> I'm confused, I thought the Californians voted themselves low taxes in the 80s and that's why you have so many unfunded mandates.



That's property taxes.  California has done things so well that they're both under and overtaxed in generally awful ways.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> No country is the same as North Korea, but the excess of money in politics is a corrupting force. It simply makes it so the haves get to influence things far more than the have-nots. Unfortunately, this was probably inevitable.



In what way is money corrupting the system? It's not like they can just cram money into valet boxes, the worst they can do is drown out messages from other parties with advertisements.

Lyndon Johnson only had a budget of eight million and Barry Goldwater had sixteen million & Lyndon Johnson utterly crushed Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Also, rich candidates that fund themselves do not traditionally win.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> In what way is money corrupting the system? It's not like they can just cram money into valet boxes, the worst they can do is drown out messages from other parties with advertisements.



It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic–Farmer–Labor_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_Minnesota

I dunno, seems like they can when they bother to actually go local; which they never seem to do. Most of them seem to only give a shit about big state positions or the presidency without trying to build a support base to me. Hell, they go years without bothering to front a candidate and most 3rd parties seem to be created by petty sore losers.

Kindly explain examples of lobbyism affecting the lawmaking process of congress. Cite an example; because I could reason why lobbying is a good thing and why it can be annoying beyond just appealing to emotion.

And how do you know what the founders would want and would do with different knowledge? Because these are the same people who originally wanted the senate to be non-electable offices, hated the notion of a popular vote deciding the presidency, and restricted voting rights by wealth. Seems they'd disagree with you really hard to me.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

I am perfectly aware that many of the third parties don't really have much of a support base, but it's extremely difficult to do so, because although there are plenty of people who would readily vote for a third party, they're more afraid of not getting counted for anything, so that's part of the reason it's so hard for anyone who isn't behind one of the two 800 pound gorillas to get a word in edgewise. Not that there's really much difference between the two...

I would like to hear an example of how lobbying is a good thing, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that. I will do my research on this before coming to a conclusion, though, but I have my doubts. Sure, lobbying groups may be a good way for certain interests to get heard, however, not everyone gets heard equally, and in practice, those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position. It's one of the reasons this country's health care system is so fucked up, even now. 

I never said I knew what the founders would have done, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way. Sure, they weren't perfect, either, but they had some good ideas, and those ideas should not be swept away simply due to a few imperfections.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> I am perfectly aware that many of the third parties don't really have much of a support base, but it's extremely difficult to do so, because although there are plenty of people who would readily vote for a third party



That doesn't explain why most of the time they don't bother in trying for local elections where votes have the most impact.


Duke Nukem said:


> they're more afraid of not getting counted for anything, so that's part of the reason it's so hard for anyone who isn't behind one of the two 800 pound gorillas to get a word in edgewise.


How do you know that there's a big core of potential third partiers? The three common identifiers are Democrat, Republican, and Independent. And while Independents are among the biggest in group size, they often just lean slightly one way or another.


Duke Nukem said:


> Not that there's really much difference between the two...


Topkek, that's pure pathos right there and blatantly wrong:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican


Duke Nukem said:


> I would like to hear an example of how lobbying is a good thing, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.


There are lobbyists who focus on environmental health (EarthJustice) and human rights (Human Rights Watch), both of which would hardly be considered evil things. And they often serve as policy advisors due to having knowledge about the topic they represent, which takes a load off of the busy government official who needs to juggle so many topics and issues at once.


Duke Nukem said:


> I will do my research on this before coming to a conclusion, though, but I have my doubts. Sure, lobbying groups may be a good way for certain interests to get heard, however, not everyone gets heard equally, and in practice, those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position.


Not really, since companies often have to fight each other with money, and the politicians that come in often don't have to listen to the ones that didn't back them. The money used is honestly diluted, and while nasty in the fact it takes noticeable amounts of money to get shit done, it also means that significant resources are needed just to maintain the status quo, as most lobbyists like to fight for.


Duke Nukem said:


> It's one of the reasons this country's health care system is so fucked up, even now.


Depending on what you think of the matter determines my response on this: let's just say that while you complain about money affecting politics, about half of the government's spending is stuck on social programs alone.


Duke Nukem said:


> I never said I knew what the founders would have done, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way. Sure, they weren't perfect, either, but they had some good ideas, and those ideas should not be swept away simply due to a few imperfections.


Congrats; they were indeed very anti-corporatism due to their experiences with and seeing the worst cases of this in the form of the East India Company and also despised the Massachussetts Bay Company, which controlled the economy of New England pre-revolution. I would note however that they also supported enterprise however, since many of them were entrepreneurs in one way or another. They also had a thing for voting by wealth. They were pro-business as a whole, but not a big fan of powerful and long-lasting corporations.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one.



At the risk of repeating myself, the big barrier to Third Parties is the electoral system.



Adamska said:


> I dunno about that considering that in the UK, minority governments (which is usually the only reason a coalition forms anyway) tend to not last long .



You're confusing two things. A minority government is a government that doesn't command a majority in the House, a coalition is two or more parties joining together to try to create a majority in the House. It's possible to have a minority coalition but fairly unusual.

Both are quite rare in the UK since most UK elections end up with one party having a clear majority. But if we do look at the UK's minimal history of coalitions and minorities, we had a coalition government between 2010 and 2015 which served a full term, and we had a minority government in 1974 which became a majority after a second election in the same year. Before that the only coalition was the wartime Labour/Tory grand coalition which was a supermajority coalition and lasted the whole duration of the war.

If you want to look at countries where coalitions and/or majorities are a common feature, continental Europe offers the most case studies, and generally they have a pretty good record of serving full terms. Italy is the well known exception to the rule but most political scientists put the instability of Italian coalitions down to other features of Italian politics (e.g. secret ballots on votes of confidence)


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, the big barrier to Third Parties is the electoral system.



Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position.



Except for Lendon Johnson & Ross Perot.



Duke Nukem said:


> *I never said I knew what the founders would have done*, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way.





Duke Nukem said:


> Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly *nothing the founders could have foreseen*.



Okay.



Duke Nukem said:


> Not that there's really much difference between the two...



http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican




Adamska said:


> *Kindly explain examples of lobbyism* affecting the lawmaking process of congress. *Cite an example*; because I could reason why lobbying is a good thing and why it can be annoying beyond just appealing to emotion.



The burden of proof is on you, @Duke Nukem. You need to prove your position, not Adamska.



Adamska said:


> Because these are the same people who originally wanted the senate to be non-electable offices, hated the notion of a popular vote deciding the presidency, and *restricted voting rights by wealth*.



Adamska already addressed this point, which implies you ignored him. Don't jump to conclusions as to what your opponents write, it makes you look desperate. We've already provided mounds of evidence to support our claim and the most you've done is repeatedly appealed to emotion, give us revenge ratings on unrelated posts in other threads & generally attempted bully your opponents into submission through said revenge ratings & being evasive when addressing rebuttals. 

edit:removed various personal attacks.- Vitriol


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.



Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.



MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Except for Lendon Johnson & Ross Perot.



I hate to be pedantic, but this keeps bugging me. It's* Lyndon *Johnson. And Johnson didn't run against Goldwater in '64 - it was Goldwater vs Kennedy.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.



Indeed, we're kind of an odd duck considering most constitutions aren't that old. Besides we've done major reforms to the structure of government in the past (Senate being brought in by election, presidential succession, ticket splitting, franchise expansion, legality on certain topics). If the people are concerted enough in wanting it, an abolition of the electorate would happen... though I'd hate it considering I come from a small state. Same with other small states, which'd lose a fuckton of voice in favor of the giants.


Dudeofteenage said:


> I hate to be pedantic, but this keeps bugging me. It's* Lyndon *Johnson. And Johnson didn't run against Goldwater in '64 - it was Goldwater vs Kennedy.



Point. The earliest elements of the election were Kennedy v. Goldwater, but his assassination in November of '63 makes it more of a Johnson v. Goldwater IMHO.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.



We just legalized gay marriage, elected a not-white person as president & legalized Marijuana in multiple states.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.



It's not likely to happen any time in the the near future, I'm sure attempts have been made, but at the end of the day, nothing seems to get through. The simple act of limiting campaign spending was shut down on the notion that it interfered with "free speech." It's a strange conclusion to come to, but whatever.



MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The burden of proof is on you, @Duke Nukem. You need to prove your position, not Adamska.
> 
> Adamska already addressed this point, which implies you ignored him. Don't jump to conclusions as to what your opponents write, it makes you look desperate. We've already provided mounds of evidence to support our claim and the most you've done is repeatedly appealed to emotion, give us revenge ratings on unrelated posts in other threads & generally attempted bully your opponents into submission through said revenge ratings & being evasive when addressing rebuttals. You are intellectually dishonest.



The other posters have posted some halfway decent evidence to support their claims, and I will take their views into account. All you have ever done in this thread is spam negative ratings, with little exception. Instead of using words to back up your own position, which you should have done in the first place, if you wanted some sort of civil discourse. However, you have proven unable to do so so far, and I'm no longer interested in addressing anything you have to say.

I will address their points as time permits.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 11, 2015)

Adamska said:


> If the people are concerted enough in wanting it, an abolition of the electorate would happen...



What do you mean by this?


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> What do you mean by this?



I meant that if there was enough consistent interest in it, that the Electoral College's abolishment could pass via amendment. You might wanna fix your quote, since I said that, not @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid .


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> The other posters have posted some halfway decent evidence to support their claims, and I will take their views into account.



Which means you're only gonna pretend to. Enough of your empty bravados, stand your ground.



Duke Nukem said:


> All you have ever done in this thread is spam negative ratings, with little exception.










Duke Nukem said:


> Instead of using words to back up your own position, which you should have done in the first place, if you wanted some sort of civil discourse.



https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025336
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025459
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025483

Edited to remove personal attacks.- Vitriol


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> We just legalized gay marriage, elected a not-white person as president & legalized Marijuana in multiple states.



I don't have a problem with gay marriage, and the legal status of marijuana is nebulous at best. While a few states do allow it to some degree, it's still federally illegal, and there have been many cases of state-legal dispensaries getting raided by the DEA for various reasons.

Just because a not-white person is in office doesn't mean he's going to be a good president, though. Personally, I don't understand America's obsession with race, but that's just me. Maybe one day, it won't be such a big deal, but I don't think that's likely to happen for some time.

It's nice to see you're actually attempting to make a decent post though.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.



One pretty common practice for the largest of the corporate donors is to use their "speech" to support the two major party candidates, because their money is of the opinion, apparently, that both candidates should be elected.

This buys an opinion on issues related to that donor, who can always pull support from one candidate or the other.  

If the Democratic and Republican candidate have identical "opinions" on a legislative issue, then the "voter's will" doesn't matter in the slightest.  If you vote for a Democrat, you will get legislation favoring XYZ Corporation.  If you vote for a Republican, you will get legislation favoring XYZ Corporation.

Part of the entire concept of democracy is that voters, through the electoral system, can turn the public will into actual government policy outcomes.  

If the outcomes are the same regardless of so-called public will, then elections are meaningless, at least with respect to those issues.

More and more of those issues are shared by both parties, who will not rock the boat and oppose the people who pay for them to have their jobs.

Given the proper circumstances, a two-party system can be as meaningless a sham as a single-party system.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 11, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Given the proper circumstances, a two-party system can be as meaningless a sham as a single-party system.



I'm always amazed by people who claim that bipartisan cooperation between moderates of both parties is the solution to America's problems, when so many of the things people complain about are the product of bipartisan moderate cooperation.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> I'm no longer interested in addressing anything you have to say.



You were saying?



Duke Nukem said:


> I don't have a problem with gay marriage,



Does this mean you _admit_ that positive change occurred in your lifetime?



Duke Nukem said:


> and the legal status of marijuana is nebulous at best. While a few states do allow it to some degree, it's still federally illegal,



It used to be _entirely_ illegal. Does this mean you _admit_ that positive change occurred in your lifetime?



Duke Nukem said:


> and there have been many cases of state-legal dispensaries getting raided by the DEA for various reasons.



Maybe you should follow the example of your "contemporaries" in this thread by _citing sources_. Again, when you make claims like these, the burden of proof is on _you_.



Duke Nukem said:


> Just because a not-white person is in office doesn't mean he's going to be a good president, though.



That is not the point, a black man could not have ever been president prior to then. Exhibit A;








Duke Nukem said:


> Personally, I don't understand America's obsession with race, but that's just me.



What's slavery? What's the Civil War? What's segregation? What's Jim Crow laws? What's the Chinese Exclusion Act? What's the Trail of Tears? What's Woman's Suffrage?

What's history?



Duke Nukem said:


> Maybe one day, it won't be such a big deal, but I don't think that's likely to happen for some time.



We have had a black person as president after two centuries of ostracization of their race, something which occurred during the lifetimes of many people who were hosed for trying to drink from whitey's fountain.



Duke Nukem said:


> It's nice to see you're actually attempting to make a decent post though.



It's nice to see you're still not trying but please, by all means, rub in that salt. It's good for disinfecting wounds.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Adamska said:


> That doesn't explain why most of the time they don't bother in trying for local elections where votes have the most impact.
> 
> How do you know that there's a big core of potential third partiers? The three common identifiers are Democrat, Republican, and Independent. And while Independents are among the biggest in group size, they often just lean slightly one way or another.



While there is a substantial number of Independents that would lean to one of the two major parties, there are quite a few who would support a third party candidate if they feel there was a substantial chance of that person winning:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/60-of-americans-want-a-third-party-candidate-for-2016.html



Adamska said:


> That doesn't explain why most of the time they don't bother in trying for local elections where votes have the most impact.
> 
> Topkek, that's pure pathos right there and blatantly wrong:
> 
> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican



In theory, they're supposed to be different, but it seems in practice, it often doesn't matter which party gets its people in office, as the results do not necessarily differ all that much. @AnOminous addresses this pretty well in his latest post. It does tie into lobbying a bit, as he states.



Adamska said:


> There are lobbyists who focus on environmental health (EarthJustice) and human rights (Human Rights Watch), both of which would hardly be considered evil things. And they often serve as policy advisors due to having knowledge about the topic they represent, which takes a load off of the busy government official who needs to juggle so many topics and issues at once.



Lobbying isn't inherently bad or evil, and not everything they fight for is necessarily bad in itself, either. There is a reason for them, and they do have a right to exist, however, sometimes it seems they have way too much power and influence over things to the point that they often end up skewing results to the point where even small changes are next to impossible to get through.



Adamska said:


> Congrats; they were indeed very anti-corporatism due to their experiences with and seeing the worst cases of this in the form of the East India Company and also despised the Massachussetts Bay Company, which controlled the economy of New England pre-revolution. I would note however that they also supported enterprise however, since many of them were entrepreneurs in one way or another. They also had a thing for voting by wealth. They were pro-business as a whole, but not a big fan of powerful and long-lasting corporations.



I'm sure they were pro-business to a degree, but I think having corporate entities hold massive influence over elected officials is not exactly the outcome they would have hoped for. If they weren't fans of powerful, long-lasting corporations, I doubt they would have favored the current model of pro-big business lobbying that's around now.



AnOminous said:


> One pretty common practice for the largest of the corporate donors is to use their "speech" to support the two major party candidates, because their money is of the opinion, apparently, that both candidates should be elected.
> 
> This buys an opinion on issues related to that donor, who can always pull support from one candidate or the other.
> 
> ...



Very well said, as I stated before, while lobbyists do have a right to exist, and not everything they do is inherently bad, I feel that they have way too much power at times. It certainly helps contribute to feelings of political alienation in the general public.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/60-of-americans-want-a-third-party-candidate-for-2016.html



That link doesn't work. Let's see what the Cache version says.



			
				WashingtonsBlog said:
			
		

> Polls show that Congress is less popular than dog poop, toenail fungus, hemorrhoids,  cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen, Genghis Khan, Communism, North Korea, BP during the Gulf Oil Spill, Nixon during Watergate or King George during the American Revolution.



Is this a fucking joke?


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> While there is a substantial number of Independents that would lean to one of the two major parties, there are quite a few who would support a third party candidate if they feel there was a substantial chance of that person winning:
> 
> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/60-of-americans-want-a-third-party-candidate-for-2016.html


I seem to be having significant issues loading this page. Not joking. The cached version seems to be very speculative, as the author is anonymous, all of the statements and citations seem to be self-referential, and it all comes off as speculative twaddle. Its base source seems to be in gallup, and I'm leery on polls mostly due to their limited nature, the chance of skewing, and the fact that the results can both vary based on question framing AND be ripped from other polls since they're lazy fucks who like to keep politics interesting and sell.


Duke Nukem said:


> In theory, they're supposed to be different, but it seems in practice, it often doesn't matter which party gets its people in office, as the results do not necessarily differ all that much. @AnOminous addresses this pretty well in his latest post. It does tie into lobbying a bit, as he states.


No, he addresses a common practice held by the largest of companies and relating to specific issues relating to that company. Is it cynical? Yes. Does it strip some element of difference? Again, yes. But this primarily applies to only some elements, as opposed to all of them.


Duke Nukem said:


> Lobbying isn't inherently bad or evil, and not everything they fight for is necessarily bad in itself, either. There is a reason for them, and they do have a right to exist, however, sometimes it seems they have way too much power and influence over things to the point that they often end up skewing results to the point where even small changes are next to impossible to get through.


I'd rather change take more time than needed than wind up like California's nightmare of a shitfuck electoral situation.


Duke Nukem said:


> I'm sure they were pro-business to a degree, but I think having corporate entities hold massive influence over elected officials is not exactly the outcome they would have hoped for. If they weren't fans of powerful, long-lasting corporations, I doubt they would have favored the current model of pro-big business lobbying that's around now.


Oh no, they'd want charters that were set for a set number of years before it could be renewed, and have it get limited to one commodity and unable to have stakes in other corporations. They'd be rolling in their graves, especially Jefferson; he hated the fuck out of centralized power.


Duke Nukem said:


> Very well said, as I stated before, while lobbyists do have a right to exist, and not everything they do is inherently bad, I feel that they have way too much power at times. It certainly helps contribute to feelings of political alienation in the general public.


I feel it's more out of the population's ignorance than a fault on the lobbyist IMO.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Does this mean you _admit_ that positive change occurred in your lifetime?



It hasn't happened because of the electoral system, no. Nationwide legalization of gay marriage was brought about by a Supreme Court decision, not by a change in the electoral system, which I was addressing with that quote. I don't see how it can really be a bad thing, I'm not gay myself, but I have friends who are, and the way they choose to live doesn't affect me. The government should stay out of consensual personal affairs, anyway.



MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> It used to be _entirely_ illegal. Does this mean you _admit_ that positive change occurred in your lifetime?



I don't necessarily think legalizing pot for recreational use is necessarily a good thing for society, but there's a lot of contradictory and confusing laws in regards to the legal status of cannabis. Medical use is kind of a no-brainer, but as far as recreational use is concerned, that's kind of a gray area in my book. Society has enough problems with alcohol and tobacco, while I don't think people should be jailed over a plant, I don't necessarily throwing another legal substance into the mix is going to help anything. Of course, people are probably going to do it anyway, might as well at least decriminalize it.

State-legal dispensaries have gotten raided several times over the past few years, here's one example.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/07/feds-raid-pot-dispenaries-washington-where-drug-legal/67585/



MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> That is not the point, a black man could not have ever been president prior to then. Exhibit A;



Did Jesse Jackson actually run for president? I know Al Sharpton competed for the Democratic primary on at least one occasion. In 2004, if I remember correctly. While he did get a substantial following, he ultimately wouldn't have succeeded even if he did win the primary, due to W having a solid foundation. Second-term elections almost invariably favor the incumbent anyway.

I understand history pretty well, I'm just rather sick of hearing about race all the time. Unfortunately, it's all we Americans ever talk about. And while being able to put a black man into political office, let alone the presidency, does offer some degree of hope, race relations in this country are still bumpy at best. Some say Canada is more tolerant, but unfortunately, it seems like race is a flashpoint even in a land many people think of as progressive and tolerant.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-2/

As far as third party supporters go, there's quite a few who potentially would.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...making-room-for-a-third-party-in-us-elections
http://www.gallup.com/poll/177284/americans-continue-say-third-political-party-needed.aspx


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Adamska said:


> I seem to be having significant issues loading this page. Not joking. The cached version seems to be very speculative, as the author is anonymous, all of the statements and citations seem to be self-referential, and it all comes off as speculative twaddle. Its base source seems to be in gallup, and I'm leery on polls mostly due to their limited nature, the chance of skewing, and the fact that the results can both vary based on question framing AND be ripped from other polls since they're lazy fucks who like to keep politics interesting and sell.
> 
> No, he addresses a common practice held by the largest of companies and relating to specific issues relating to that company. Is it cynical? Yes. Does it strip some element of difference? Again, yes. But this primarily applies to only some elements, as opposed to all of them.
> 
> ...



While Gallup polls are not perfect sources of information and subject to being skewed by various factors (sample size, etc), it does at least show there are some people who would support a third party, if it was believed that there was a reasonable chance of winning. 

Theodore Roosevelt actually came in second on a third-party ticket, 27% of the vote, or 4.1 million. So it is possible for a third party to wield influence if enough people believe it has a chance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)#Election_of_1912

AnOminous does a good job of illustrating what I'm talking about, though, sure, I'm not necessarily saying the parties are 100% the same all over, but the results often are, given the circumstances. It's certainly a cynical and alienating viewpoint, but nonetheless it's how things actually are.

California's never not had serious problems with management all over. A dominant party system helps nothing, and with years of mismanagement of various resources going on for years, it's not going to be an easy way out.

http://www.hjta.org/california-commentary/government-covers-mismanagement-higher-taxes/

Regardless of the source, this kind of thing's been going on for over at least a decade. And it's not just taxes, either, mismanagement has led to various droughts, forest fires, and power brownouts. Not even the Governator could tame this mess. But perhaps positive change taking too long is an acceptable trade-off.

The founders also disfavored political parties, especially George Washington, who absolutely despised them. Also, one of the things that they would not have liked are the existence of trusts and conglomerates that have stakes in multiple and often unrelated industries. The government does keep a close eye on them, but they are often difficult to break up when they get too powerful, ie the Microsoft anti-trust suits. One example of a trust from history is Standard Oil, which controlled the vast majority of the industry towards the late 19th and early 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt, who wasn't anti-business necessarily, did manage to break it up into a few smaller entities to remove political influence and bring back competition in the industry.

The ignorance of the public doesn't help anything, but I still think lobbying can exert a little too much influence at times. A well-informed public is necessary to a functioning democracy/republic/parliament/what-have-you, but unfortunately, I don't think Americans are necessarily well-informed, or even care to be. Call me cynical if you will.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> It hasn't happened because of the electoral system, no. Nationwide legalization of gay marriage was brought about by a Supreme Court decision, not by a change in the electoral system, which I was addressing with that quote. I don't see how it can really be a bad thing, I'm not gay myself, but I have
> 
> friends who are, and the way they choose to live doesn't affect me. The government should stay out of consensual personal affairs, anyway.










Duke Nukem said:


> Did Jesse Jackson actually run for president?



Yes. Yes he did. How do you not know this?



Duke Nukem said:


> Unfortunately, it's all we Americans ever talk about.



No, it isn't.



Duke Nukem said:


> And while being able to put a black man into political office, let alone the presidency, does offer some degree of hope, race relations in this country are still bumpy at best.



It is, still, however, a positive change in your lifetime, yes?


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Yes. Yes he did. How do you not know this?
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> It is, still, however, a positive change in your lifetime, yes?



-In what manner do you believe I am moving the goalposts?

-It's been a while, forgive me for not knowing about the 1988 primaries right off the top of my head. He never made it past the primary, though. Few people do, though, to be fair.

-It seems to be a rather frequent theme, regardless of whatever semblance of social progress may have happened in the past few decades.

-It's hard to say whether the president's policies, in and of themselves, are a good thing, but the fact that skin color isn't necessarily a barrier anymore is a step in the right direction. Hopefully that will remain so.

OK well, maybe I'm not perfect, but no one is 100% right on everything, all the time.


----------



## Vitriol (Oct 11, 2015)

I've edited a couple posts to remove personal attacks. @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid there is no need to directly insult someone who is disagreeing with you even if you think their opinions  or points are stupid.

@Duke Nukem a few of your posts are borderline aswell.

Going forward please refrain from insulting each other or I will thread ban.

On Topic: I have never read it but this study came out a few years ago regarding the effect of lobbying: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PPS/PPS12_03/S1537592714001595a.pdf&code=b18898d500a2c24090aecae20ceafeb1


I only ever read the summary but the gist of it was that when lobbyists and voters disagree lobbyists tend to win out- which is obviously extremely concerning. As I say though I never read the thing and their methodology may be faulty/the summary I read may have been less than honest.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> I've edited a couple posts to remove personal attacks. @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid there is no need to directly insult someone who is disagreeing with you even if you think their opinions  or points are stupid.
> 
> @Duke Nukem a few of your posts are borderline aswell.
> 
> ...



I understand, I've tried not to be too harsh, but it's hard not to lose your shit when your opponent resorts to name-calling and spamming negative ratings in an attempt to bait you instead of addressing one's points. Everyone else, even when they don't agree, has been generally civil about it. Sure, I may not be perfect about that stuff at times, but in the absence of the above stated items, I'm willing to at least hear people out.

There's plenty of good information about how lobbying affects the legislative process, but regardless of whether the overall effects are good or bad, it is quite concerning when someone like a corporate lobbying group who, for example, opposes reform in medical insurance or the pricing points of pharmaceuticals, holds sway over a senator who promised to fight for fairer prices in these things more than the people who put him in office. 

It's stuff like this that makes people feel like they have no real say in how things are actually run. Sure, the report may not be perfect, but there are others out there that reach a similar conclusion.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 11, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> It hasn't happened because of the electoral system, no. Nationwide legalization of gay marriage was brought about by a Supreme Court decision, not by a change in the electoral system, which I was addressing with that quote. I don't see how it can really be a bad thing, I'm not gay myself, but I have friends who are, and the way they choose to live doesn't affect me. The government should stay out of consensual personal affairs, anyway.


You complain about a lack of change in your lifetime; when given examples of these changes, you maneuver the goalposts to state essentially the same thing that was refuted only using different conditions. That's not exactly a style of argument I approve of.


Duke Nukem said:


> Did Jesse Jackson actually run for president? I know Al Sharpton competed for the Democratic primary on at least one occasion. In 2004, if I remember correctly. While he did get a substantial following, he ultimately wouldn't have succeeded even if he did win the primary, due to W having a solid foundation. Second-term elections almost invariably favor the incumbent anyway.


Yes: 1988. He got blasted for weird remarks over Jews. As for dubya and his chances, he actually came pretty close for an incumbent being unseated, and this is still with some of that "rally behind the flag" element that 9/11 and Iraqi Freedom netted him.


Duke Nukem said:


> I understand history pretty well, I'm just rather sick of hearing about race all the time. Unfortunately, it's all we Americans ever talk about.


It's a big part of our national psyche, so of course race relations are a major topic. I mean fuck, we have people who still can remember being told "we don't serve your kind here". Still kind of a big deal because of it.


Duke Nukem said:


> As far as third party supporters go, there's quite a few who potentially would.
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...making-room-for-a-third-party-in-us-elections
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/177284/americans-continue-say-third-political-party-needed.aspx


Traditionally 3rd parties do the worst out of any of the parties, probably because most if not all of them are vehicles for essentially sore losers. The four way race in 1860 was due to the Democrats disagreeing on who to front and a compromise bloc headed by John Bell. The 1912 elections was due to Roosevelt essentially being pissed that he didn't get the nod. 1924 was Robert M. Follete creating a vehicle to get elected. Dixiecrats and George Wallace did it to express annoyance that the Dems were being nicer to not-white people. And most recently, Perot kind of did it on a lark and backed out at one point.


Duke Nukem said:


> While Gallup polls are not perfect sources of information and subject to being skewed by various factors (sample size, etc), it does at least show there are some people who would support a third party, if it was believed that there was a reasonable chance of winning.


The only poll I remotely bother to look  to is Nate Silver's predictions, mainly because he's not prone to rip off other polls to create his own. That and he actually has a decent track record, unlike Mr. Celeste and Washington Blog.


Duke Nukem said:


> Theodore Roosevelt actually came in second on a third-party ticket, 27% of the vote, or 4.1 million. So it is possible for a third party to wield influence if enough people believe it has a chance.


And losing that election basically murdered said party since Teddy went back into the fold and it allowed Woodrow Wilson into office. So yeah, 3rd parties often serve as spoilers. When people say they will, the often change their mind I've noticed. Even the really good 3rd party runs experience a notable drop-off in numbers.


Duke Nukem said:


> AnOminous does a good job of illustrating what I'm talking about, though, sure, I'm not necessarily saying the parties are 100% the same all over, but the results often are, given the circumstances. It's certainly a cynical and alienating viewpoint, but nonetheless it's how things actually are.


I seem to recall him mostly talking about how the ultra-big corporations do it as a means to get words in, and that it only mitigated that element and may be getting more and more prevalent. I don't see this surety you're trying to state is there.


Duke Nukem said:


> California's never not had serious problems with management all over. A dominant party system helps nothing, and with years of mismanagement of various resources going on for years, it's not going to be an easy way out.


All due to the fact that people are flighty and often go "it won't effect me" like idiots. Really this is more of a sign that direct democracy fucks things up than a sign of needing a third party element to me.


Duke Nukem said:


> Regardless of the source, this kind of thing's been going on for over at least a decade. And it's not just taxes, either, mismanagement has led to various droughts, forest fires, and power brownouts. Not even the Governator could tame this mess. But perhaps positive change taking too long is an acceptable trade-off.


Arnie as a decent governor?

He was not only in the running as one of the worst governors in the country, but he left office with approval ratings on par with Dubya. This is what happens when you base your government on whims.


Duke Nukem said:


> The founders also disfavored political parties, especially George Washington, who absolutely despised them.


It's why they rapidly fell into and created their own political parties. Hell, even Washington favored a faction; the Federalists. I mean fuck, Jefferson was the father of the Democratic party for pete's sake.


Duke Nukem said:


> The ignorance of the public doesn't help anything, but I still think lobbying can exert a little too much influence at times. A well-informed public is necessary to a functioning democracy/republic/parliament/what-have-you, but unfortunately, I don't think Americans are necessarily well-informed, or even care to be. Call me cynical if you will.


Well of course not; research is effort and people just want it spoonfed to them as my experience with this has shown me. It's why no one ever bothers to actually read on the scientific literature and just takes what they see with blogs and news outlets.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 11, 2015)

Adamska said:


> You complain about a lack of change in your lifetime; when given examples of these changes, you maneuver the goalposts to state essentially the same thing that was refuted only using different conditions. That's not exactly a style of argument I approve of.



Maybe I'm not always right about things, there's no need to be. Once in a while something good does happen, but I've not had a very optimistic view upon the current state of affairs. People's attitudes in general have shifted on gays and pot, but I kind of have mixed feelings on the latter.



Adamska said:


> Yes: 1988. He got blasted for weird remarks over Jews. As for dubya and his chances, he actually came pretty close for an incumbent being unseated, and this is still with some of that "rally behind the flag" element that 9/11 and Iraqi Freedom netted him.



Do you mean Bush being unseated in the 2004 election itself, or unseated in the 2004 primary? I'm aware the election was fairly close, but either way, it wouldn't surprise me if he almost got toppled in the primary. Even with his edge as an incumbent and all that 9/11 super-patriot acting, no one was sure. But generally, people tend to go with the guy they know over the one they don't, at least with second-term bids.



Adamska said:


> It's a big part of our national psyche, so of course race relations are a major topic. I mean fuck, we have people who still can remember being told "we don't serve your kind here". Still kind of a big deal because of it.



Sad but true, it's pretty depressing no matter how you look at it. Even Canada makes a huge deal out of race relations at times, as I may have mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, in the US, this one's not likely to by dying down anytime soon.



Adamska said:


> Traditionally 3rd parties do the worst out of any of the parties, probably because most if not all of them are vehicles for essentially sore losers. The four way race in 1860 was due to the Democrats disagreeing on who to front and a compromise bloc headed by John Bell. The 1912 elections was due to Roosevelt essentially being pissed that he didn't get the nod. 1924 was Robert M. Follete creating a vehicle to get elected. Dixiecrats and George Wallace did it to express annoyance that the Dems were being nicer to not-white people. And most recently, Perot kind of did it on a lark and backed out at one point.



Third parties have always been a strange lot. While I don't want to believe that they're all kooks or anything like that, some of their ideas may be a bit off the beaten path. There's obvious outliers like the Prohibition Party, which still exists today. Sure, few people advocate the outlawing of alcohol today, but it's out there. Some third parties do have good ideas, sadly, there's little chance of them coming to fruition.

Sadly, we are going to have to accept that we are stuck with a two-party system, and that means that people are going to be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, or not be heard at all.



Adamska said:


> The only poll I remotely bother to look  to is Nate Silver's predictions, mainly because he's not prone to rip off other polls to create his own. That and he actually has a decent track record, unlike Mr. Celeste and Washington Blog.



Polls themselves are not 100% reliable indicators of anything, but they do help to paint a decent picture, if done right. Of course, there's the question of bias and people skewing polls to get the results they want from them, in order to support a specific claim. While I am not affiliated with Celeste, Washington Blog, or Gallup, the Gallup polls have for the most part correctly predicted the winners of presidential elections with a few exceptions. Polls are subject to margin of error and sample size, regardless, but combined with other information, can give a good picture of the situation overall.



Adamska said:


> And losing that election basically murdered said party since Teddy went back into the fold and it allowed Woodrow Wilson into office. So yeah, 3rd parties often serve as spoilers. When people say they will, the often change their mind I've noticed. Even the really good 3rd party runs experience a notable drop-off in numbers.



Unfortunately, most third parties don't even get this far, but under the right circumstances, it is possible. The reason most third party supporters usually don't follow through boils down to the fear that their first choice has no chance of winning, so they simply end up voting for whichever of the two major parties they dislike less. While some third parties have won locally, such as Jesse Ventura as Minnesota governor, most of them lack the foresight to build a base and try simply winning local elections, and thinking long term. Instead, they aim too high, and that hurts their chances. You have to walk before you can run, but many don't think it through. All it does is make third parties look like kooks running for personal glory rather than anything else, even if that's not the case. Some of them have legitimate concerns and ideas, and it's sad to see those go to waste or go unconsidered.



Adamska said:


> I seem to recall him mostly talking about how the ultra-big corporations do it as a means to get words in, and that it only mitigated that element and may be getting more and more prevalent. I don't see this surety you're trying to state is there.



It is certainly getting more prevalent, and while it may not be a sure-fire way for lobbyists to get their way with the lawmakers, it certainly holds a degree of influence over the actual decision-making. No one can predict the final decision, but what's basically legalized bribery in our legislature does wield quite a bit of power.



Adamska said:


> All due to the fact that people are flighty and often go "it won't effect me" like idiots. Really this is more of a sign that direct democracy fucks things up than a sign of needing a third party element to me.



Well, if people were better informed or cared to be, it probably wouldn't be as bad, but that's just me being optimistic. People not understanding the issues in general is certainly a major contributor though. California doesn't even have room for two parties, let alone a third.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system#Americas



Adamska said:


> Arnie as a decent governor?
> 
> He was not only in the running as one of the worst governors in the country, but he left office with approval ratings on par with Dubya. This is what happens when you base your government on whims.



I never said he was good, that was more in jest. As much as I like his movies, I don't think actors make good statesmen. The point is, California was messed up both before and after he left, and even though he didn't perform too well, he was fighting an uphill battle either way. Did he leave California in worse shape than before? It's hard to say, there's a conflicting number of sources on the deal.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2028599,00.html

Either way, he should probably stick to acting and bodybuilding.



Adamska said:


> It's why they rapidly fell into and created their own political parties. Hell, even Washington favored a faction; the Federalists. I mean fuck, Jefferson was the father of the Democratic party for pete's sake.



While Washington and others disfavored political parties, it's inevitable that they're going to take form in any sort of political system, whether it be a republic, democracy, parliamentary, what-have-you, factions tend to form. Even communist countries have factions within their parties at times.

Here's a good read regarding the negatives of party politics:

http://www.localelectors.org/2012/09/01/political-parties-were-never-meant-to-be/

And this problem is not limited to democratic forms of government, either

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/asia/china-political-factions-primer/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/14/chin-j14.html



Adamska said:


> Well of course not; research is effort and people just want it spoonfed to them as my experience with this has shown me. It's why no one ever bothers to actually read on the scientific literature and just takes what they see with blogs and news outlets.



It can be interesting to read about for some people, but many feel that it's all distant from themselves and are less interested than they would be otherwise. Doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions on anything can be difficult, and it takes time and effort to make informed decisions. Most are just happy to take 30 second news bites at face value and go with that, even in the face of an obviously biased source.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Oct 12, 2015)

Several posts here have been deleted.
Please slap-fight elsewhere, you two.


----------



## Bugaboo (Oct 12, 2015)

The Canadian political system, from what little I understand is:
-Vote in Conservatives to get rid of Liberals
-Get sick of Conservatives
-Vote in Liberals to get rid of Conservatives
-Get Sick of Liberals
And it has been that way since forever.
It should be noted that there are two other parties that enjoy moderate populatity, they are the Green Party and the NDPs. Neither of these parties have gotten a candidate from their party as the PM but I think locally and provincially they do ok


----------



## DoshesToDoshes (Oct 12, 2015)

Bugaboo said:


> The Canadian political system, from what little I understand is:
> -Vote in Conservatives to get rid of Liberals
> -Get sick of Conservatives
> -Vote in Liberals to get rid of Conservatives
> ...



Are you Australian, by any chance?

I'm fairly sure all democratic governments do this, actually. We've got the Liberal and Labour parties and the Greens. We also have a lot of independents. Every couple of years, a power shift occurs and Greens always get a decent number of seats.


----------



## bearycool (Oct 12, 2015)

https://static.kiwifarms.net/data/avatars/s/0/231.jpg?1417417329 A moment agoyawning sneasel: 
You hould post on the forms of government thread that you are a cummunist

Hi, apparently I'm what he said.


----------



## Bugaboo (Oct 12, 2015)

DoshesToDoshes said:


> Are you Australian, by any chance?
> 
> I'm fairly sure all democratic governments do this, actually. We've got the Liberal and Labour parties and the Greens. We also have a lot of independents. Every couple of years, a power shift occurs and Greens always get a decent number of seats.


No, I'm just a very stupid Canadian


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 12, 2015)

DoshesToDoshes said:


> Are you Australian, by any chance?
> 
> I'm fairly sure all democratic governments do this, actually.



Not all democratic party systems are that static or that focused around two large parties.

Even the presented summary of the Canadian party system is inaccurate, at least at the moment - the Liberals are only the third biggest party at the moment.


----------



## RepQuest (Oct 12, 2015)

In regards to lobbying, large businesses lobbying in their own interest will always be around in mixed economies, regardless if the ways that they do it are legal or illegal, and the government would be _its own_ lobbyist in a command economy. The only ways around that would be either the government ceasing any and all economic regulation or not having a government at all, and I doubt that most people would want either of those options.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 13, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Not all democratic party systems are that static or that focused around two large parties.
> 
> Even the presented summary of the Canadian party system is inaccurate, at least at the moment - the Liberals are only the third biggest party at the moment.



At least you have more than two parties to choose from. I'm sure things are done differently in Canada and other British Commonwealth states, though. Does Canada have an equivalent to America's Electoral College?


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> Does Canada have an equivalent to America's Electoral College?



No. To use a rather clunky metaphor, Canada's system is one where the 'President' (the Prime Minister) is chosen by a majority of the House of Representatives, who can fire him at any point, for any reason, providing they can get a majority to vote against him. There's no direct election for the position of Prime Minister (although in practice if you vote for, say, the Conservatives, you're voting for Harper to be Prime Minister as much as you're voting for anything).

I don't think there's any country in the world that has anything like the USA's electoral college - even those who directly elect their chief executives almost always do so through a simple majority vote.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 13, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> No. To use a rather clunky metaphor, Canada's system is one where the 'President' (the Prime Minister) is chosen by a majority of the House of Representatives, who can fire him at any point, for any reason, providing they can get a majority to vote against him. There's no direct election for the position of Prime Minister (although in practice if you vote for, say, the Conservatives, you're voting for Harper to be Prime Minister as much as you're voting for anything).
> 
> I don't think there's any country in the world that has anything like the USA's electoral college - even those who directly elect their chief executives almost always do so through a simple majority vote.



Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others. In France, for example, The president does foreign and defense policy, and the prime minister does domestic and economic duties. It varies by country, but this is just one scenario.

The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.

Either way, I didn't think there was anything else out there like it.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others.



I'm aware of this. In fact I live in one of them. I'm not sure how it contradicts or modifies what I just said, though.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 13, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> I'm aware of this. In fact I live in one of them. I'm not sure how it contradicts or modifies what I just said, though.



I never said it did, many people here think it's just one or the other, and not aware that both can exist in the same system.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.



It was part of the compromise (the Connecticut Compromise) necessary to convince the small states to join the Union along with the large states, by giving the small states with low population two electoral votes free (corresponding to their Senate seats).  The scheme is that each state is entitled to two electoral votes plus one for each member of the House of Representatives.  (D.C. gets three despite not having voting Congresscritters because reasons.)

There's no really good reason for this to be the case, other than it started that way and the states that benefit from their inordinate voting weight don't want to give it up for obvious reasons.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Oct 13, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It was part of the compromise (the Connecticut Compromise) necessary to convince the small states to join the Union along with the large states, by giving the small states with low population two electoral votes free (corresponding to their Senate seats).  The scheme is that each state is entitled to two electoral votes plus one for each member of the House of Representatives.  (D.C. gets three despite not having voting Congresscritters because reasons.)
> 
> There's no really good reason for this to be the case, other than it started that way and the states that benefit from their inordinate voting weight don't want to give it up for obvious reasons.



I don't know if you're American as well, but every four years here, there's a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the Electoral College for a myriad of reasons. I'm sure there's some good arguments in favor of keeping it, but it does tend to fuck things up at times, case in point the controversy over Florida in the 2000 election. Al Gore did win the popular vote, but not the electoral, and many were genuinely upset about that.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

Personally, I'm not in favor of it, but I can see where defenders are coming from to a point.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> I never said it did, many people here think it's just one or the other, and not aware that both can exist in the same system.



It's nice of you to try and share your knowledge but it's usually best to wait for somebody to ask or at least indicate lack of familiarity rather than just broadcasting information that you think people could benefit from.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> I don't know if you're American as well, but every four years here, there's a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the Electoral College for a myriad of reasons.



Yes.  There has been talk of abolishing the Electoral College pretty much since it came into existence.

It will never happen.


----------



## Adamska (Oct 13, 2015)

Duke Nukem said:


> Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others. In France, for example, The president does foreign and defense policy, and the prime minister does domestic and economic duties. It varies by country, but this is just one scenario.
> 
> The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.
> 
> Either way, I didn't think there was anything else out there like it.



It was also a big bone to throw to the tiny states like Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They were leery about joining the union because they feared that their voices would be utterly neutered by giants such as New York and Virginia. This is the same reason why we have a bicameral Legislative branch, since it was done as a compromise. The house was what the big states wanted, since they were granted seats by population. The senate was what the smaller states wanted; a set amount of representatives.


----------

