Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Bottom of Page
Author Topic: Politics and Such  (Read 15992 times)
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1836

« Reply #140 on: October 21, 2013, 08:03:03 AM »

How is civil war possible? (It obviously has been possible in many parts of the world.)
I believe that it is possible when a state is "poorly" run, e.g. when power and wealth is considered to be badly distributed, when those at power use that power in ways that the population finds unacceptable, when there are large cultural/religious divides and in periods of economic/security instability.

Even though the US has its problems (like all of us) I did not think that it was a candidate for civil war. I still don't.
Perhaps this article will help you understand some of the background -- The Roots of the Government Shutdown.
Thank you for that link. It will take some digesting.

The most puzzling part (for me) is the "winner takes it all" system. Why should any democratic system promote anything but the "one man, one vote" ideal? And if we assume that party politics currently dominates the political outcome, the most important goal should be that if 51% of the people vote "republican", then the republicans should get to decide. Then all politicians would have insentives to face the people (wherever they live), and not only in some areas where the opinion is divided.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 08:14:42 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 3806

« Reply #141 on: October 30, 2013, 01:48:53 PM »

The most puzzling part (for me) is the "winner takes it all" system.

Why America doesn't work
Sr. Member
Online Online

Posts: 8860

« Reply #142 on: November 01, 2013, 11:04:35 PM »

America works perfectly fine for those who run it. You just need to be part of the club.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 11:07:37 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Dale Villeponteaux
Full Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 203

« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2013, 11:06:12 AM »

One result of the winner-takes-all system is that an elective majority is different from a governing majority.  Even if theoretically elected to unfettered power, the majority must assuage the minority, or risk getting nothing done.  FDR understood this well; not every President has.  Some political entities in the U.S. have played with representational apportionment, but this risks weak governments which are able to act only when a consensus exists.  Actually, not so different from the present.  In the end, no system guarantees a "good" outcome.  It always depends on the people elected to make it work.  The current weakness of the US government is simply a reflection of deeply-felt values that differ widely.  Expect nothing to change until a national consensus arises.

 The flux you are seeing now has existed in varying degrees since the old consensus was shattered by the Viet Nam War.  The lasting legacy of that war is the deepened distrust of the national government.  In fact, to a lot of people, a government that cannot govern is a desirable outcome.

This should be taken with salt,

A modest man, with much to be modest about
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Top of Page
Jump to: