Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

[CC_JAR]

Neither am I a history major, just an occassional armchair enthusiast, but I think you're about right. And I agree... multi-party systems are also frought with problems--many problems of which I'm not keen on having crop up here in the USA. That said, I think it might be nice, perhaps ideal, to try having between 3 and 5 major parties.

(Effectively, we kind of do, but they are shrink-wrapped into two permanent party coalitions. On one side you have the Christian/Family Values party permanently tied to the Fiscal Conservative party and the Defense/Warhawk party. On the other side you have the Free-love and Liberal Values parties permanently tied to the Social Reform party, the Environmentalist party and the Government Regulations party [please let those sound mostly neutral to everyone else]. But there's really nothing inherrent to these two coalitions that ought to bind them together. What if, for instance, you have a voter who is a strong Christian Values voter, but who also believes in Social Reform and Environmentalism as well as Fiscal Conservatism... There's not a party that represents this voter's collection of values.)

another thing would be to have equal amounts of money for all candidates running, no fundraising, and limits set for how much they are allowed to spend campaigning.
(ie: no more than 1mil on paper ads, 2.5 mil on transportation, 3mil on tv ads) <thats an example, I have no clue what actual values would be, but just so you understand what I mean..

[jfrazierjr]

another thing would be to have equal amounts of money for all candidates running, no fundraising, and limits set for how much they are allowed to spend campaigning.
(ie: no more than 1mil on paper ads, 2.5 mil on transportation, 3mil on tv ads) <thats an example, I have no clue what actual values would be, but just so you understand what I mean..

I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. Would it be nice to see someone become elected that was not already a gazillionaire? Someone the average person could relate to, a dentist, a teacher, a highway construction worker, or a restaurant manager.

[CC_JAR]

I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. Would it be nice to see someone become elected that was not already a gazillionaire? Someone the average person could relate to, a dentist, a teacher, a highway construction worker, or a restaurant manager.

yeah, sorry if this is endoursing a candidate, but it doesnt matter at this point,
but I saw Sarah Palin as that person, she had only been governor for 2-3 years, before that a mayor of a small town. she wasn't our average politician, she really was an average joe, and didnt have corporate america at heart.

but then again Obama kind of came from nowhere too..

[Karro]

yeah, sorry if this is endoursing a candidate, but it doesnt matter at this point,
but I saw Sarah Palin as that person, she had only been governor for 2-3 years, before that a mayor of a small town. she wasn't our average politician, she really was an average joe, and didnt have corporate america at heart.

but then again Obama kind of came from nowhere too..

It's true, both come from humble backgrounds. The difference is in the level of expertise and knowledge the two have gained. One has a significantly greater level of education and expertise, especially as regards the Constitution itself, than the other. That's what I meant by my above comment about any given everyman that wants to run for office having to work d**n hard to have the skills and expertise necessary to work well when/if they achieve the office they seek. It's hard work, and guts and chutzpah alone will not a good public servant make.

[CC_JAR]

It's true, both come from humble backgrounds. The difference is in the level of expertise and knowledge the two have gained. One has a significantly greater level of education and expertise, especially as regards the Constitution itself, than the other. That's what I meant by my above comment about any given everyman that wants to run for office having to work d**n hard to have the skills and expertise necessary to work well when/if they achieve the office they seek. It's hard work, and guts and chutzpah alone will not a good government person make.

true but in this circumstance, and this may be going into testy waters again, you have to look at just how they got to where they are, and the choices that they make even now. I'm not going into details, you can look for yourself if you're interested, but one suddenly got sponsored to go to college, the other worked their way through.

[Karro]

I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. Would it be nice to see someone become elected that was not already a gazillionaire? Someone the average person could relate to, a dentist, a teacher, a highway construction worker, or a restaurant manager.

That sounds like a great idea--the realization of the great American Dream. But those Dentists, Teachers, Highway Construction Workers and Restaurant Managers better work d**n hard to learn everything that is necessary to learn and gain the expertise necessary to run this country and not be a major screwup. Governing this country--whether as a lowly city counselor, state legislator, Congressperson, or President, is an awfully complex and difficult proposition. These days, your average everyperson is simply uninformed enough to even know how our government works, much less have anything approaching the skills necessary to run it. The Founding Fathers knew this was the case, and that's largely why they designed it the way it is.

[CC_JAR]

That sounds like a great idea--the realization of the great American Dream. But those Dentists, Teachers, Highway Construction Workers and Restaurant Managers better work d**n hard to learn everything that is necessary to learn and gain the expertise necessary to run this country and not be a major screwup. Governing this country--whether as a lowly city counselor, state legislator, Congressperson, or President, is an awfully complex and difficult proposition. These days, your average everyperson is simply uninformed enough to even know how our government works, much less have anything approaching the skills necessary to run it. The Founding Fathers knew this was the case, and that's largely why they designed it the way it is.

that is true, though most of that is the fault of our failed school system. Here in Western NC (Burke Co.), our high schools are where we start learning chemistry, civics, economics, Calculus (if they even teach it)(dont even think about trig), and other subjects that are being tought to middle school students around the world.

[Karro]

that is true, though most of that is the fault of our failed school system. Here in Western NC (Burke Co.), our high schools are where we start learning chemistry, civics, economics, Calculus (if they even teach it)(dont even think about trig), and other subjects that are being tought to middle school students around the world.

I have yet to figure out this dichotomy: how is it that we have one of the worst public primary and secondary education systems in the world... and yet one of the best (if not the best) collegiate and university systems in the world. I don't know, but the facts speak for themselves.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly. Our early public education needs to be overhauled. Unfortunately, by all accounts, "No Child Left Behind" wasn't the thing that will do it.

[Karro]

true but in this circumstance, and this may be going into testy waters again, you have to look at just how they got to where they are, and the choices that they make even now. I'm not going into details, you can look for yourself if you're interested, but one suddenly got sponsored to go to college, the other worked their way through.

I've investigated the matter as much as I felt was necessary, and done my best to separate the slander from the facts. There is a lot of misinformation regarding said topic, and it's impossible to know with absolute certainty what the real truth is. Further, Obama is not the first to have records of this sort sealed off (both the Bush and Clinton White House bids enjoyed a similar lack of transparency). Given that, I made the decision to ignore that which is not verifiable as fact, and not to be swayed by rumor and innuendo.

Oh... I understand your apprehension, but I think the debate/campaign process would ultimately let the people weed out the idiots (of which there may be many) Besides, no matter your political affiliation, can you really look at Washington and say "most" of those bozos up there have your individual best interest at heart above their own? I can't.

Touche. Although I don't know if I trust the collective idiot filters of a nation with a sub-par education, either. It's a catch-22, I guess.

[QUOTE=jfrazierjr;37437]

as from what I've read about it I don't think it's really all that fair and will disproportionately tax the poor;/quote]

Note, I can't say I have studied the thing in great detail, but it if you(or anyone), has not looked at it, you might want to get into it more detail. High level, here is what I understand:

• Anyone below the poverty level would in effect pay zero taxes.
• Everyone else would only pay(federal) taxes on the things they buy.
• Drastically reduced complexity. The most involved tax complications would take minutes instead of hours/days.

Granted, i am sure it has it's flaws, but the current system isn't working to well, at least not for me...

I have read a bit about it already. (I was curious about this alternative to paying taxes as I do now.) I don't see how it can possibly remain simple, for us the taxpayers, and meet the criteria you list though. If there are certain people who will not be paying taxes, by virtue of their poverty, then this would entail that there be some system, almost necessarily a complex system, to discern those who have an obligation to pay the tax from those who do not. And as a general rule, I think it undertaxes the vast resources of those very wealthy who conspicuously don't consume (while their consumption may be lavish, as a percentage of their wealth, it their spending is proportionately less than the spending of most middle-class Americans) as opposed to the large middle class who conspicuously consume...

[jfrazierjr]

Touche. Although I don't know if I trust the collective idiot filters of a nation with a sub-par education, either. It's a catch-22, I guess.

Heh.... well....again, how is the current system any different/better? People still tend to vote for people that they like based on personality(or the effectiveness of the opponents negative adds really), not based on what the persons political goals are. Ultimatly, being rich does not nessisarily make one better qualified by default to lead the country, nor does education a leader make. Of course, I would feel a bit better about a candidate who built their own wealth, especially one who had created wealth and lost it for some reason and rebounded, than someone who was born into wealth.