Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 06:58 PM
Original message |
| Next time, let's just skip on the primary process. |
|
Voting has become much too passe. How about we all get together and FEEL our way to the next candidate? I mean, why quantify what we believe is inevitable? Why let the process go forth, with earnest debate, when we can simply choose a candidate based on his or her awesomeness!?!! Consider the money we'll save!
2012 here we come. Voting: It's just so lame.
;)
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. There are advantages in a parliamentary system |
|
where parties choose their leaders from among those who've been around for awhile and proven to be effective in their ministry positions.
It's a whole lot less expensive, too.
|
slick8790
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 3. But hey, think about how much worse the economy would be doing now |
|
without the millions of dollars obama has pumped in to the economies of the states he's campaigned in. I wish I could say the same for hillary, and I will say the same once she pays her debts.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 7. Seems to me it's the corporate media that benefits the most |
|
and I can't think of a less worthy- and more irresponsible set of economic interests that ought to be profiting from this.
Score another round for the parliamentary system.
|
Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 5. Actually, the one aspect of a parliamentary system that I appreciate... |
|
is the lack of confidence vote, and the fact that the Prime Minister must regularly defend his or her decisions in front of the House of Commons.
If this were our system, Bush would have been out at least a few years ago.
|
mac2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 6. Only one house of the Parliment in the British system is |
|
Edited on Sun Apr-13-08 07:38 PM by mac2
elected. The other is still "royal" and appointed. The House of Lords is just that.
It wasn't until recently that the Mayor of London was elected by the people.
Many of the British rent their land and homes from the elite who own it. I hate to see land for lease here in America for just that reason.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 8. Contrast that with the upper house (the Senate) in Australia |
|
where there's a form proportional representation.
While the upper houses in the two systems have similar functions of review, real power lies with the "lower" houses, which actually manage to get things done when they have progressive majorities.
(part of that of course is due to the fact that DINO types aren't tolerated and enabled, as they are in the states).
|
Tuesday Afternoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:01 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. I am definitely in favor of election reform -- |
|
God forbid if this starts all over again on 1/21/09 when so-and-so announces their candidacy for 2012. I will scream for sure :crazy:
|
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 07:02 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. It'll be Obama's re-election...shouldn't be much of a problem |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Feb 20th 2026, 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |