Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: We need a new system [View all]

MineralMan

(151,155 posts)
44. Well, I haven't seen any parliamentary systems controlled by
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 02:59 PM
Jul 2012

any combination of the folks you mentioned, really.

As for the survival of the US, I think you're way off on your timing, there. Yes, it is divided, just about equally between those two parties you mentioned. Third parties don't do well here, despite there being many of them over the years. They're always around, but seldom do they elect enough people to be even a minor coalition party. Most elect nobody at all.

The center, both left and right of the political center, makes up most of those who show up at the polls. The rest of the population doesn't bother to vote, so they get no representation. There are many reasons they don't vote, but third parties haven't succeeded in getting enough of them to turn out for those parties, either. Non-voters make up pretty close to half of the adults in this country. Maybe that's the target you all should be trying to motivate. It hasn't worked very well with those who vote, so we do get a pretty centrist sort of elected legislature, both state and federal, which means things go on much as they have.

The bottom line is that the bulk of the voters are more or less OK with our system, shifting one way and another from time to time, but always meeting somewhere in the middle to elect people. How you plan to overcome that, I don't know, but it's going to take far more people than you currently have on your side to do that, if side is the right word. I think that "edge" is a better word.

It's not that I'm opposed to making a major change in our political and economic system. It's that I don't see any path to that, and never have seen one. We're not really an "edgy" country for the most part. At least that part of it that bothers to vote isn't that edgy. The problem really is that any major change is going to take legislation, signed by the executive of states and national government. Until you can manage that, I'm afraid what you suggest isn't going anywhere, and that's not going to happen any time soon, as far as I can see.

I'm an old fart already. I might have 20 years left. It won't happen during that time, I'm positive. That's just five more Presidential elections, and right now, everything's split right down the middle, nationally, and pretty much the same on the state level, when you take population of states into account.

Good luck.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We need a new system [View all] Taverner Jul 2012 OP
But what do we replace it with? LARED Jul 2012 #1
The methodology should be the Scientific Method Taverner Jul 2012 #2
I think there is some science in my idea LARED Jul 2012 #7
What system do you recommend, Taverner? MineralMan Jul 2012 #3
Like I said, take the best elements from 20th century political theory Taverner Jul 2012 #5
Ah, hodgepodgism. MineralMan Jul 2012 #9
Want exact solutions? Here: Taverner Jul 2012 #16
Sounds like way too many 'ism's to HappyMe Jul 2012 #10
Well, heck, then. Let's just have anarchy. MineralMan Jul 2012 #12
Anarchism =/= Libertarianism Taverner Jul 2012 #19
And how did Makhno's anarchist Ukraine work out? MineralMan Jul 2012 #20
Well the Red Army destroyed it Taverner Jul 2012 #25
Yes, they did. That was another Revolution by MineralMan Jul 2012 #32
Anarchism actually eschews large governments Taverner Jul 2012 #34
I can't imagine any consensus from that coalition you suggest. MineralMan Jul 2012 #39
You would think a Parliamentary system could never find a consensus then.... Taverner Jul 2012 #42
Well, I haven't seen any parliamentary systems controlled by MineralMan Jul 2012 #44
Singapore built a state utilizing multiple theories Taverner Jul 2012 #17
Singapore? Have you checked their civil rights history? MineralMan Jul 2012 #21
But, but, but the roads are good! HappyMe Jul 2012 #27
Well, there is that. MineralMan Jul 2012 #28
That wasn't my point - I never said it was optimal Taverner Jul 2012 #36
I think it should be a system for we, the people.... kentuck Jul 2012 #4
We, the people includes MineralMan Jul 2012 #11
It would still have to be decided in a democratic way... kentuck Jul 2012 #13
Ah. Well, then, there's the rub. MineralMan Jul 2012 #14
Well, if you don't like my system, then vote for the status quo.... kentuck Jul 2012 #15
Interesting subthread PETRUS Jul 2012 #41
They lack class consciousness Taverner Jul 2012 #18
OK. Education. That's always a good idea. MineralMan Jul 2012 #23
Culturejamming, Killcap, Education, Occupy Taverner Jul 2012 #24
So, post a link to adbusters.org here. MineralMan Jul 2012 #33
It's not "the system" that's broken; it's our values. "The system" is ruthlessly efficient Romulox Jul 2012 #6
I think you are right, but I would LARED Jul 2012 #8
Duthchas MichaelMcGuire Jul 2012 #22
Its not the system thats the problem Drale Jul 2012 #26
Demarchy gets rid of the politicians and money. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #29
It works when it comes to juries Taverner Jul 2012 #30
Think if a Noam Chomsky or Joan Baez gets chosen. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #31
This is true, but are there more Chomskys or Metzgers in the world today? Taverner Jul 2012 #35
Beats me. But, I do know that they're are a lot politicians on the take. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #37
Yes, true Taverner Jul 2012 #38
I say we link the tax code for the top 1% to the unemployment rate. Ganja Ninja Jul 2012 #40
That I can get down with Taverner Jul 2012 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We need a new system»Reply #44