Can you Believe This???

MusicMan,
I am not sugguesting that, although I normally try not to vote unless I feel that the need is dire for me to do so. (But then again, I vote for a 3rd party, so many argue that I might as well not vote since I'm just "throwing mine away" anyway).
What I am sugguesting is that there needs to be a major overhaul of the system. Tocqueville pointed out that the problem with a democratic voting society is that the people who would be the best poiliticans are the ones who are smart enough to not run, because they know precisely the amount of shit that is involved. The people who shouldn't be running, (the people who are in it for personal glory) at the ones who will be attracked to running in a democratic system. Of course, I also think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that there are only two major parties in the US, who have a strangle-hold on power, and thus prevent any mechanism of change that will threaten their stability. But hoping for a viable 3rd party candidate is pretty much hopeless. In the mean time, if people don't want to vote for a corrupted system that does them no good anyway, I say let them. I'm not one of those people who screams at people who don't vote, because I understand where they are coming from. If your candidate wins, they screw you over, so you get nothing. If your candidate loses, then you essentially threw away your vote, and you get screwed. So, not voting looks like an attractive option. If you are going to get screwed either way, why bother going to the polls? (And I seriously have issue with those people who scream about throwing away your rights....it is nothing of the kind, as our rights are only ours as long as the politicians defend them, and as they don't normally, then they aren't ours.)
Caspar,
forgive me if I'm wrong here, but ALL systems of government are flawed. They are the results of human beings, who are flawed. Therefore, it would be awful difficult for a group of flawed things to come up with a perfect system of anything. The object is to find the system that strikes the best balance for the people, not to eliminate the flaws. You bring up good points (though nothing original, Tocquville came up with all those ideas first) but....The Netherlands are a consitutional monarchy, am I right? Granted you have a multi-party system, but that doesn't stop you guys from having just as many problems as we in the US do. Why in the world are you so anti-American?

Makes me wonder, what is the proper solution for all this monkey business. I guess if we knew that, it'd be done. But I wonder if there is such a solution.

Nothing that we can come up with. I don't think there will ever be a solution. But it gives people like us something to talk about, doesn't it? ;-)

And it is quite fun to talk about such things intelligently (or not) with people. If they happen agree with me, that's a good thing. If they happen to disagree with me, then it's interesting - also a good thing.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Caspar,
forgive me if I'm wrong here, but ALL systems of government are flawed. They are the results of human beings, who are flawed. Therefore, it would be awful difficult for a group of flawed things to come up with a perfect system of anything. The object is to find the system that strikes the best balance for the people, not to eliminate the flaws. You bring up good points (though nothing original, Tocquville came up with all those ideas first) but....The Netherlands are a consitutional monarchy, am I right? Granted you have a multi-party system, but that doesn't stop you guys from having just as many problems as we in the US do. Why in the world are you so anti-American?[/QUOTE]

I am vehemently opposed to the Dutch government too, as it is extremely corrupt, and currently filled with theocratic scum. As for the "all systems are flawed", yes. I have said so on several occasions. However, the US government is currently attempting to force theirs onto the rest of the world, and thus I am aiming my arrows at them. I am not anti-American, but I am anti-imperialist, and your current president is wholeheartedly a religious fundamentalist and an imperialist. Therefore, I shall oppose him in any way I can. Interpreting my anti-republican position as anti-Americanism is a mistake, whether knowingly made (as it in the case of certain people on this site), or unwittingly, intepreting opposition to a government as opposition to the people of a country.

Saying you are Anti-Dutch doesn't excuse your Anti-Americanism. You call it being Anti-Imperialism, but I don't see you taking any other members of the coaltion to task for it. Obviously, if you think that Americans are being imperialistic, we aren't alone. Britian, Austrailia, Japan...all these governments are helping. I've never seen you take them to task for being part of the coalition that is causing American Imperialism.
If you are gunna be anti-Imperialist, then be evenly anti-Imperialist.

If anything, I take exception to TQ's attribution of religious fundamentalism to the Republican Party. That's almost as stereotypical as attributing communism to the Democratic Party.

Yes, most religious fundamentalists would vote Republican, and most communists would vote Democratic, but that says nothing about the two parties.

Keep in mind that many Libertarians typically vote Republican, and what's more stereotypical than the athiest Libertarian?

Thanks for pointing that out, Brian.
I missed that...but my brain is kind of scattered right now.