[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-03, 16:50, said:

Union of states based on appointed bureaucrats = EU

Don't be so stupid. Just because they are not elected in the same way as US senators does not mean that the EU is not based on elected officials. The constituent countries elect their MEPs and their governments. The governments in turn elect the officials.

One notes that the American government works similarly. The President appoints a cabinet as they like without the people getting to vote on them. It is seen as good enough to elect the President. The EU sees it similarly, it is just that the power flows along different lines.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-03, 17:28, said:

Don't be so stupid. Just because they are not elected in the same way as US senators does not mean that the EU is not based on elected officials. The constituent countries elect their MEPs and their governments. The governments in turn elect the officials.

One notes that the American government works similarly. The President appoints a cabinet as they like without the people getting to vote on them. It is seen as good enough to elect the President. The EU sees it similarly, it is just that the power flows along different lines.

Can the elected reps (MEPs) change policy, remove "appointees" or otherwise act like a government?

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-03, 17:46, said:

Can the elected reps (MEPs) change policy, remove "appointees" or otherwise act like a government?

Who cares? And what has it got to do with your "point" of EU representatives being unelected. Can Senators remove appointees to the Supreme Court? Just because the EU does not work the way you think it should does not mean that those in charge are not elected. You can make as many spurious swipes as you like but none will change this fundamental point.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-03, 18:31, said:

Who cares? And what has it got to do with your "point" of EU representatives being unelected. Can Senators remove appointees to the Supreme Court? Just because the EU does not work the way you think it should does not mean that those in charge are not elected. You can make as many spurious swipes as you like but none will change this fundamental point.

You (will) get the government you deserve... but voting for it helps to remove divine-right issues.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-04, 05:14, said:

You (will) get the government you deserve... but voting for it helps to remove divine-right issues.

And the people of every EU country do indeed elect their governments. Which part of this is difficult for you to understand?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-03, 17:28, said:

One notes that the American government works similarly. The President appoints a cabinet as they like without the people getting to vote on them. It is seen as good enough to elect the President. The EU sees it similarly, it is just that the power flows along different lines.

Cabinet members have to be approved by the Senate, which is seen as the people's additional participation in the process. Same thing with SCOTUS appointments, although I expect the Senate considers this much more serious because it lasts beyond the President's administration.

[barmar]

Dilbert this week has been taking on the presential election. Nothing really new, but seeing PHB repeat typical politicion blather puts it in perspective.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2016-June-04, 11:22, said:

Cabinet members have to be approved by the Senate, which is seen as the people's additional participation in the process. Same thing with SCOTUS appointments, although I expect the Senate considers this much more serious because it lasts beyond the President's administration.

Indeed, as I mentioned before, the US has the best (of perhaps a poor lot) representative guv in the world. Every layer of bureaucracy helps to separate the people from the(ir) power. What is hard to understand is how many are unable to perceive this most evident of facts.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-04, 13:57, said:

Indeed, as I mentioned before, the US has the best (of perhaps a poor lot) representative guv in the world.

You seriously believe that a system that gives its people a choice between HC and DT is the best representative democracy in the world? While the American system has plenty to admire, there are other options around that have at least as good a claim to that title.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 14:33, said:

You seriously believe that a system that gives its people a choice between HC and DT is the best representative democracy in the world? While the American system has plenty to admire, there are other options around that have at least as good a claim to that title.

Simply the best, better than all the rest...
That is why I said it.
AND as I also said, you get (the guv) that you deserve.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 14:33, said:

You seriously believe that a system that gives its people a choice between HC and DT is the best representative democracy in the world? While the American system has plenty to admire, there are other options around that have at least as good a claim to that title.

fwiw I think the best representative democracy in the world and in theory would be the City/State...size matters

[kenberg]

I know I can be downright boring about this, but I really do not think it is productive to try to rank who has the best democratic system. This goes along with not liking talk of "American Exceptionalism". To start with, it isn't even clear what it all meant. But it invites arguments. Endless arguments. After which everyone is more agitated but not at all wiser.

My own country will soon be having an election in which, for the first time in my life, I believe one of the major candidates is utterly unqualified to be president. I considered voting for McCain. I didn't, but early in the campaign I thought that I would. I don't think the election of Romney would have been a disaster. Going way back to my youth I supported Adlai Stevenson but I thought Ike to be a very decent president. But Trump? Good God, what are they thinking? I guess it would certainly make us exceptional!.

Anyway, whether personally or politically, we do better to examine our own problems, mistakes and opportunities. Let those who feel the need to produce rankings do as they feel they must.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-June-05, 05:56, said:

I know I can be downright boring about this, but I really do not think it is productive to try to rank who has the best democratic system. This goes along with not liking talk of "American Exceptionalism". To start with, it isn't even clear what it all meant. But it invites arguments. Endless arguments. After which everyone is more agitated but not at all wiser.

My own country will soon be having an election in which, for the first time in my life, I believe one of the major candidates is utterly unqualified to be president. I considered voting for McCain. I didn't, but early in the campaign I thought that I would. I don't think the election of Romney would have been a disaster. Going way back to my youth I supported Adlai Stevenson but I thought Ike to be a very decent president. But Trump? Good God, what are they thinking? I guess it would certainly make us exceptional!.

Anyway, whether personally or politically, we do better to examine our own problems, mistakes and opportunities. Let those who feel the need to produce rankings do as they feel they must.

I think that the election of Romney would have been an unqualified disaster - not so much because Romney was awful but because he would have had a Republican Congress that equates compromise with failure and looks upon political opponents as an enemy force to be defeated.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-05, 07:54, said:

I think that the election of Romney would have been an unqualified disaster - not so much because Romney was awful but because he would have had a Republican Congress that equates compromise with failure and looks upon political opponents as an enemy force to be defeated.

Could not the Dem minority have frustrated their efforts much as the Rep minority did a few years back?
Checks and balances ... reminds me of a banking practice

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2016-June-02, 13:09, said:

I read the piece, but nevertheless have trouble believing all of it:


Something is off; that can't be correct.

I'm a registered Republican, although I'm thinking of switching to Libertarian, or just de-registering altogether (if the State will allow me to do that). I know that Obama is black. I don't care. I know that he was born in the US. I think that "controversy" is a crock of *****. I frankly don't know, nor do I care, what religion he follows. My problem with him is that he's a political campaigner, not a leader. And from what I've seen of him, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw the White House.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 14:33, said:

You seriously believe that a system that gives its people a choice between HC and DT is the best representative democracy in the world? While the American system has plenty to admire, there are other options around that have at least as good a claim to that title.

This election is clearly an anomaly. There's never been an election where both candidates were so unlikable.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 14:33, said:

You seriously believe that a system that gives its people a choice between HC and DT is the best representative democracy in the world? While the American system has plenty to admire, there are other options around that have at least as good a claim to that title.

I suppose there are some things to admire, but a two-party system doesn't qualify as democracy in my book.

It is still better than the UK since at least the Americans have primaries and they don't have a house of lords. But at the end of the day, at election day, you are offered a choice between two candidates and a vote for a third candidate is wasted. That is the main problem.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2016-June-05, 15:30, said:

and a vote for a third candidate is wasted

Not if enough people get fed up with the two main parties.

Actually, it seems to me that this whole "you have to vote for one of the two main parties, otherwise your vote is wasted" thing is just a scam perpetrated by those same two main parties. It also seems to me that if you can show a trend of increasing percentage of the total vote for third party candidates, you might be able to leverage that to an even greater increase, and eventually a third party way.

OTOH, looking at a typical ballot here in New York, there are usually quite a few "third parties". Unfortunately, the "third party" candidate is very often one of the two main party candidates. Doesn't do much for choice, does it?

Personally, I hope (without much hope) for the day when most of the votes are write-ins for "none of the above is acceptable".

[Al_U_Card]

Warren G. Harding advocated the "anti-lynching" bill to protect blacks in the 20's and it was voted down by Congress.... perhaps if Hil is indicted due to the FBI investigation BEFORE the election...
Then there is always the lottery to choose any boob for congress...it might actually be better.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-05, 15:58, said:

Not if enough people get fed up with the two main parties.

"Enough" is so many that it's really a practical impossibility. I think you've got a better chance of winning the lottery so you can become one of the 1% than expect a third-party candidate to win.

Polls have shown that Hillary and Donald's likability is through the floor, but I expect at least 95% of the votes will go to one of them; maybe this election season will be weird enough that it could go down to 90% (particularly if Bernie were running in one of those parties). Third party candidates have an uphill battle just getting enough recognition in polls so that they can get into the debates.