Look at how many times the multi-(usually seven-)party system in Sweden has collapsed: 0. The system is similar to the Italian system except that a part needs at least 4% of the nations' votes or 20% of a regions' votes to be accepted into parliament, and at least 2% natl. or 10% rgnl. to get continued govt. funding
That's true, but there are many other examples to the contrary, like Spain, and even France. Maybe Swedes are more homogenous in their political beliefs, in spite of the multiplicity of parties.
Yeah. Stability. Great. Just imagine how terribly unstable the whole system would be if there was a chance for *poor* people to get into politics - or a non-WASP majority. Gee, then the people of America may become politically aware, and a reasonable amount of people might vote, and then where would we be? Sheesh
You really see no value in benign stability? Most Americans want the government to be neither seen nor heard. It's hard to see where your sarcasm is taking you. Are you a US citizen? If you were, you'd know that poor people can get into politics, though I wouldn't start with the US Senate. I certainly wouldn't vote for somebody who couldn't get a job, though. What idiot would? And there are many non-WASPs involved in politics. And the people of America are fairly aware, especially when a poor job is being done. Most people are satisfied with their representation, however, and there is little upheaval.
That's a great point. But in most elections it's not a credible threat. And I wonder if, say, all those who are Libertarians joined the GOP tomorrow, would it not give them a big ideological shove - a much bigger one than the message you are describing?
I'm sorry you had a bad time with UPS. The overall service record of UPS versus USPS is very very one-sided, though, in favor of UPS. They're cheaper, too. They also offer online tracking.
As far as universal coverage goes, can you name a place in the US that isn't served by UPS of FedEx? (Or RPS, or Airborne Express...)
On the contrary, I think Rep Sanders would get his way with that, assuming he actually has anything but a passing affiliation with that party.
But to your original point, the reason gop.gov is being set up is because the RNC and other Republican sites aren't being updated, and so are fairly useless. That's all.
It is clearly in the enumerated powers in the Constitution that the House and Senate may make their own rules. Well, the majority party (through the Rules committee) makes the rules for that Congressional session.
I don't have to look it up. There is, as I said, only one Independent in the House, Bernie Sanders, and he organizes with the Democrats and votes like them. (He's hardly independent.) And there are no independents in the Senate, unless you count Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who was GOP all his life until nobody supported his now-defunct Presidential bid. He still doesn't know what party he's in.
And if enough people voted libertarian, they wouldn't be throwing away their vote.
No, but these decisions are supposed to be made in Reality. When was the last time a third party had an enduring effect on American politics? And do you really think the Libertarians could ever triumph in the US? They'd have a much larger influence joining the GOP (where most of them are already).
But a little ass-biting might actually make people a little more involved politically.
Why should I want more people to be more politically active? Would life be improved if even more people who don't know jack about government and economics are out casting ballots?
I say let em elect a screwball if that is what the public wants.
But that's my point! In a multi-party election, most of the people may have voted against the victor! So he is exactly who the public did NOT want.
What you are proposing is rule by some self-described elite rather than rule by the people.
No, that is what you are proposing. The only people who would be ruling in a multiparty system are those 20 or 30 percent who got the plurality. In a two-party system, a majority of the voting people voted for the victor, which is more just.
Right. If you are going to bring up Nazis, then I'll bring up American revolutionaries being perceived as loonies by the Crown
You can bring them up, but that doesn't make it relevant. There is no ideological comparison between the two. And the contexts were ENTIRELY different. The colonies had no parliamentary representation at all, third party or otherwise. The Nazis did, and won in your favorite kind of system.
No. The House Republican conference is a standing committee of the US House, and is not at all comparable to the RNC. It doesn't have the same role or power as many other committees. But it definitely is a legitimate and official organizational body of the House, with all the appropriate priveleges. For the record, there are lots of these sorts of groups in both branches of Congress. More in the House, though.
In fact, I question the need to give the HRC (and whatever the Democrats' counterpart is, the HDC?) official house committee standing. The fact that members of Congress share a party should not be something to form a committee over, it should be an unofficial caucus at best.
Then you truly, truly, don't know how Congress works on a day-to-day basis. The member runs around all day meeting constituents, attending to lots of committee meetings, occasionally making speeches, going to hearings, and voting in the full House. They have only a small amount of time for learning about legislation, or party work. The Conference Committees keep members from duplicating tons and tons of effort. Most of the bills Congress votes on are incredibly complicated and non-controversial. The Conference Committees are essential to sorting all of this mess out. They are a vital organizing element of Congress.
It's not the GOP. There are so few technically clueful people in Congress period. (AlGore was an exception-God Bless the Father of the Internet). Why would a geek with massive stock options run for Congress?
But actually this is true of most issues, not just technical ones. Congressmen must vote every day on things they cannot possible have had time to study and understand. It's just a fact of life.
This relationship would be better described as RobLimo suggested; GOP.HOUSE.GOV
Maybe you're right, but gop.gov is much simpler, and that Conference Committee is probably going to be here longer than the IRS.
An interesting experiment would be, as you suggested, to have the Democrats register DEMOCRATS.GOV, or better yet, INDEPENDENTS.GOV, and see what kind of stink that would raise
Now, I'm sure the Dems could do this - they have a Conference Committee, too. But there is no 'Independent' conference in the House. There is only one Independent member, and he organizes with the Dems.
Now what I find even more interesting is that CAIS.COM, the nameservice provider for GOP.GOV, has a banner image of a major city skyline being destroyed in massive, flaming explosion. Coming on the heels of the Senate voting down participation in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, my paranoid conspiracy theory engine purrs...
hehe- that's funny. But what dumbass would sign an unverifiable treaty? The image of a burning city would be more likable if the skyline was DC instead of NYC, though.;)
...Personally I hate the government and don't trust them with anything. That's why I vote Libertarian [note the.org:)]. And don't even tell me that I'm throwing away my vote..
You're throwing away your vote. The only libertarians who are ever going to vote in Congress are going to be elected as Republicans, like Ron Paul (R-TX), who was previously the Libertarian candidate for President. If enough libertarians had his sense, they could actually accomplish something within the GOP.
Maybe you should change that to "The lack of a Hitler is a good thing." Cause that's what you meant. That was an entirely different system. Congress does NOT elect our chief executive. Even if the ENTIRE congress supported David Duke for Pres, the people are not that stupid (hopefully).
I know we don't have a parliament, but tell me -what if the Presidential Vote was 30% Republican 30% democrat and 40% Ass-Biting Party in about 30 states? Well, we'd all get our asses bitten for at least four years.
The only thing that a two party system accomplishes is stiffling out change in the interest of campaign supporters. Period
On the contrary, the two-party system does indeed serve greater purposes. It lends stability to a government. Look how many times the muti-party government of Italy has collapsed since WWII. It also helps to keep the loony parties from getting seats. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that there is a multi-party system in the US. You are free to vote for many parties, or even write-in your favorite cartoon character. Fortunately, most people leave Mickey Mouse off the ballot.
I would rather lead the way than look to other countries as a standard. Do we really want the postal service of France? (no offense please I love France hehe).
I would make two assertions. First, a private corporation could deliver the mail at a lower cost and with greater reliability. The US gov itself uses Fedex for it's overnight shipping - NOT the USPS! It's just the sort of service that works much better when it's subject to competition. Second, it shouldn't even matter how efficient the USPS is. In a free country, I should be able to start a business delivering mail in my hometown. Right now, if I did, I'd be shut down and imprisoned. No kidding. It happened in Baltimore in the 80's. (not to me of course!)
Well, I was responding to Roblimo's comment, where he said
I disagree. I believe a political orgaization - and that's what political party is; it's certainly not a government agency - should be an ".org", not a ".gov"
Do you see? But perhaps you are right about gop.house.gov over gop.gov
They have a (ridiculous) legal monopoly on mail delivery. So they overcharge for stamps, and use the money to pay for their huge losses on package delivery, where they do have competition. If they had to compete equally, they'd go out of business.
This all kind of sucks for a lot of small businesses, who end up spending more than they should on postage. Anybody who sends out adverts will tell you they cost more to mail than to print.
The reason they aren't a.GOV domain is that they are a semi-autonomous corporation owned wholly by the US gov. - so they could probably use a.com or.gov and still be honest both ways.
Your opinion of their 'usual arrogance' is your own shabby little conceit. But you are wrong in thinking the Majority party conference committee isn't an offical government body. In fact, a House committee is as official as can be, no matter which party creates it.
This isn't a special interest organization. It's a standing committee of the majority party of the US House. Totally different. Your sentiment is certainly correct, though.
But they are the only parties in the House (with the exception of Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont). They have both been around for at least 150 years. No other party has sustained members in Congress since the Civil War.
And the 'sad lack of political diversity in the USG' isn't at all apparent to a person familiar with the huge ideological diversity in both major parties. The lack of diversity of parties, on the other hand, is in my opinion a good thing, since it keeps flakey parties from getting elected with a plurality (instead of a majority) -sometimes of only 20 or 30 percent. For example, Hitler came to power with only a third of the vote - but there were too many uncooperating parties splitting the non-moron vote. Ergo the ass won.
Tell me, Byron- if they are "just two of *many*", then why are there only Republicans and Democrats (and Bernie Sanders) on Capitol Hill? Where are these 'many' you are so concerned with? I agree they exist, but not in sufficient numbers to notice.
The Reform party has only one elected official above the local level, and he is a complete fluke and a joke. And the only libertarian member of Congress, Ron Paul (TX), had to become a Republican to get elected. (Yes this is the same Ron Paul who ran for President as the Libertarian Party candidate)
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but there are many other examples to the contrary, like Spain, and even France. Maybe Swedes are more homogenous in their political beliefs, in spite of the multiplicity of parties.
Yeah. Stability. Great. Just imagine how terribly unstable the whole system would be if there was a chance for *poor* people to get into politics - or a non-WASP majority. Gee, then the people of America may become politically aware, and a reasonable amount of people might vote, and then where would we be? Sheesh
You really see no value in benign stability? Most Americans want the government to be neither seen nor heard. It's hard to see where your sarcasm is taking you. Are you a US citizen? If you were, you'd know that poor people can get into politics, though I wouldn't start with the US Senate. I certainly wouldn't vote for somebody who couldn't get a job, though. What idiot would? And there are many non-WASPs involved in politics. And the people of America are fairly aware, especially when a poor job is being done. Most people are satisfied with their representation, however, and there is little upheaval.
That's a great point. But in most elections it's not a credible threat. And I wonder if, say, all those who are Libertarians joined the GOP tomorrow, would it not give them a big ideological shove - a much bigger one than the message you are describing?
I admire your optimism, but tell it to the Germans in 1932. Yikes!
It's funny that they are the majority party when they've alienated so much of the population. Or maybe you're just full of beans.
As far as universal coverage goes, can you name a place in the US that isn't served by UPS of FedEx? (Or RPS, or Airborne Express...)
But to your original point, the reason gop.gov is being set up is because the RNC and other Republican sites aren't being updated, and so are fairly useless. That's all.
Oh, I don't know, maybe when they have at least a single elected official in Washington.
It is clearly in the enumerated powers in the Constitution that the House and Senate may make their own rules. Well, the majority party (through the Rules committee) makes the rules for that Congressional session.
I don't have to look it up. There is, as I said, only one Independent in the House, Bernie Sanders, and he organizes with the Democrats and votes like them. (He's hardly independent.) And there are no independents in the Senate, unless you count Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who was GOP all his life until nobody supported his now-defunct Presidential bid. He still doesn't know what party he's in.
Maybe because Gates donated a boatload of free MS software to the House and Senate when they began to take an interest in MS's fight with the DOJ.
No, but these decisions are supposed to be made in Reality. When was the last time a third party had an enduring effect on American politics? And do you really think the Libertarians could ever triumph in the US? They'd have a much larger influence joining the GOP (where most of them are already).
But a little ass-biting might actually make people a little more involved politically.
Why should I want more people to be more politically active? Would life be improved if even more people who don't know jack about government and economics are out casting ballots?
I say let em elect a screwball if that is what the public wants.
But that's my point! In a multi-party election, most of the people may have voted against the victor! So he is exactly who the public did NOT want.
What you are proposing is rule by some self-described elite rather than rule by the people.
No, that is what you are proposing. The only people who would be ruling in a multiparty system are those 20 or 30 percent who got the plurality. In a two-party system, a majority of the voting people voted for the victor, which is more just.
Right. If you are going to bring up Nazis, then I'll bring up American revolutionaries being perceived as loonies by the Crown
You can bring them up, but that doesn't make it relevant. There is no ideological comparison between the two. And the contexts were ENTIRELY different. The colonies had no parliamentary representation at all, third party or otherwise. The Nazis did, and won in your favorite kind of system.
No. The House Republican conference is a standing committee of the US House, and is not at all comparable to the RNC. It doesn't have the same role or power as many other committees. But it definitely is a legitimate and official organizational body of the House, with all the appropriate priveleges. For the record, there are lots of these sorts of groups in both branches of Congress. More in the House, though.
Then you truly, truly, don't know how Congress works on a day-to-day basis. The member runs around all day meeting constituents, attending to lots of committee meetings, occasionally making speeches, going to hearings, and voting in the full House. They have only a small amount of time for learning about legislation, or party work. The Conference Committees keep members from duplicating tons and tons of effort. Most of the bills Congress votes on are incredibly complicated and non-controversial. The Conference Committees are essential to sorting all of this mess out. They are a vital organizing element of Congress.
But actually this is true of most issues, not just technical ones. Congressmen must vote every day on things they cannot possible have had time to study and understand. It's just a fact of life.
Maybe you're right, but gop.gov is much simpler, and that Conference Committee is probably going to be here longer than the IRS.
An interesting experiment would be, as you suggested, to have the Democrats register DEMOCRATS.GOV, or better yet, INDEPENDENTS.GOV, and see what kind of stink that would raise
Now, I'm sure the Dems could do this - they have a Conference Committee, too. But there is no 'Independent' conference in the House. There is only one Independent member, and he organizes with the Dems.
Now what I find even more interesting is that CAIS.COM, the nameservice provider for GOP.GOV, has a banner image of a major city skyline being destroyed in massive, flaming explosion. Coming on the heels of the Senate voting down participation in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, my paranoid conspiracy theory engine purrs...
hehe- that's funny. But what dumbass would sign an unverifiable treaty? The image of a burning city would be more likable if the skyline was DC instead of NYC, though. ;)
You're throwing away your vote. The only libertarians who are ever going to vote in Congress are going to be elected as Republicans, like Ron Paul (R-TX), who was previously the Libertarian candidate for President. If enough libertarians had his sense, they could actually accomplish something within the GOP.
Maybe you should change that to "The lack of a Hitler is a good thing." Cause that's what you meant. That was an entirely different system. Congress does NOT elect our chief executive. Even if the ENTIRE congress supported David Duke for Pres, the people are not that stupid (hopefully).
I know we don't have a parliament, but tell me -what if the Presidential Vote was 30% Republican 30% democrat and 40% Ass-Biting Party in about 30 states? Well, we'd all get our asses bitten for at least four years.
The only thing that a two party system accomplishes is stiffling out change in the interest of campaign supporters. Period
On the contrary, the two-party system does indeed serve greater purposes. It lends stability to a government. Look how many times the muti-party government of Italy has collapsed since WWII. It also helps to keep the loony parties from getting seats. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that there is a multi-party system in the US. You are free to vote for many parties, or even write-in your favorite cartoon character. Fortunately, most people leave Mickey Mouse off the ballot.
I would make two assertions. First, a private corporation could deliver the mail at a lower cost and with greater reliability. The US gov itself uses Fedex for it's overnight shipping - NOT the USPS! It's just the sort of service that works much better when it's subject to competition. Second, it shouldn't even matter how efficient the USPS is. In a free country, I should be able to start a business delivering mail in my hometown. Right now, if I did, I'd be shut down and imprisoned. No kidding. It happened in Baltimore in the 80's. (not to me of course!)
The US Postal Service definitely hasn't been privatized.
I disagree. I believe a political orgaization - and that's what political party is; it's certainly not a government agency - should be an ".org", not a ".gov"
Do you see? But perhaps you are right about gop.house.gov over gop.gov
This all kind of sucks for a lot of small businesses, who end up spending more than they should on postage. Anybody who sends out adverts will tell you they cost more to mail than to print.
The reason they aren't a .GOV domain is that they are a semi-autonomous corporation owned wholly by the US gov. - so they could probably use a .com or .gov and still be honest both ways.
No, silly, I meant a record for NT!
Your opinion of their 'usual arrogance' is your own shabby little conceit. But you are wrong in thinking the Majority party conference committee isn't an offical government body. In fact, a House committee is as official as can be, no matter which party creates it.
This isn't a special interest organization. It's a standing committee of the majority party of the US House. Totally different. Your sentiment is certainly correct, though.
And the 'sad lack of political diversity in the USG' isn't at all apparent to a person familiar with the huge ideological diversity in both major parties. The lack of diversity of parties, on the other hand, is in my opinion a good thing, since it keeps flakey parties from getting elected with a plurality (instead of a majority) -sometimes of only 20 or 30 percent. For example, Hitler came to power with only a third of the vote - but there were too many uncooperating parties splitting the non-moron vote. Ergo the ass won.
The Reform party has only one elected official above the local level, and he is a complete fluke and a joke. And the only libertarian member of Congress, Ron Paul (TX), had to become a Republican to get elected. (Yes this is the same Ron Paul who ran for President as the Libertarian Party candidate)