Food Stamps: Are they for food or cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets? Are the recipients actually deserving of them.
Farm Subsidies: Are they for keeping wealthy mega-farms profitable?
Corporate welfare: Is it to keep the lobbyists appeased?
Serioiusly... The USPS, public education system, and food stamps are a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate pork barrel that goes to companies like Haliburton etc.
Second, why in the hell would you tell ANYONE to type out a registry key anyway?
Norton Symantec Endpoint Protection has hosed the TCP/IP stack on your VP's laptop while he's in his hotel room on the other side of the country.
He needs to pull his PowerPoint presentation off the server that his office assistant worked on last night.
You're unable to remote in or email him the registry fix due to the glaring obvious problem that he has no TCP/IP connection and his local tech turned off Window's Restore on his image for some unknown reason.
Obviously the only thing you can do for him is to read out the entry over the phone... Just saying because its happened.
The registry is a database file, why can't be backed up?
Thats easy...
Lets say (and this has happened more than once to offices that I have had the pleasure of working in):
Program A is installed and messes with the registry. Program B is installed and messes with the registry. Program A runs an update and messes with the registry.
Something happens (malware, hotfix, windows update) and Program A has to be fixed with a registry backup restore at the time of its installation.
Now Program B is screwed up because its missing its entries. Oh lets put the registry restore back after its installed, but now we're missing the registry entries for the update.
Actually, I've never worked in an office where restoring the registry was considered to be a reasonable option and usually considered a last resort because so many things can go wrong.
Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary. Crowd bomb theater is short (BOOM!) and cleaned up quickly.
I'm too tired to find the article, but its what the Hamas suicide bombers did to Israeli soldiers after they setup security checkpoints.
As they couldn't sneak bombs into Israel anymore (that easy), they decided to just target the soldiers directly at the gates.
Of course the jokes on them as many checkpoints involve soldiers sitting in a blast proof bunker who do the checkpoint screenings via CCTV and a loudspeaker.
I take a dice and throw it in the air. Even if I give you the starting terms and the exact forces used to throw the cube, you still cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, tell me what number it will land on. Even with everything known, there are things we cannot calculate.
I'm pretty sure if we had a marker on the cube and a hi-speed camera plus a rather fast image processing computer, we could give you an answer before the dice had landed. Also it wouldn't be too hard to create a robot arm to throw the dice with exactly the same force and position each time.
Dice have to adhere to the laws of physics just like everything else. Its just when humans throw them, there are so many variables that it seems random.
Now, when we start talking about particle decay or trying to determine the position of an electron.
A variety of methods were proposed by statesmen such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Daniel Webster. Some of the apportionment methods discovered in the United States were in a sense rediscovered in Europe in the 19th century, as seat allocation methods for the newly proposed system of party-list proportional representation. The result is that many apportionment methods have two names: for instance, Jefferson's method is equivalent to the d'Hondt method, as is Webster's method to the Sainte-Laguë method, while Hamilton's method is identical to the Hare largest remainder method.[12]
Well to be fair, he didn't really point out the problems as he proposed a different method. Of course he did a lot back then such as proposing 20 years in between constitutional conventions to re-approve the constitution (or to add or remove depending).
And in Europe its called the D'Hondt method, but its basically the same as Jefferson.
Personally I didn't know Jefferson had created a different voting method until I saw it in a computer game called "Victoria 2" in which you could change your government voting system so I had to look it up.
Well of COURSE most people want their own opinions to be the only ones in power. I would love it if I had complete and total control and congress voted in lockstep with me.
I think you misunderstood me.
I want my personal political view in government, rather than in control of government.
Let's say we have 30% demss, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 20% socialists in congress.
I'd be much more happy with that than the current government which as you say Ron Paul has to parade as a Republican (which he himself has said the only reason he is one, is because a non 2 party candidate has no realistic ability to win).
That said, there is nothing preventing individuals running as parties in these systems.
I mentioned Kadima earlier, which was founded by Sharon after he had a break with his existing political party. When people voted for Kadima they were voting for Sharon.
Same thing is still happening in the states like it or not... Just without 3rd parties.
People are simply voting Republican because they support Sarah Palin and people are voting Democrat because they support Obama.
I'm pretty sure I voted for people today that I have no idea who are, but I know whoever I vote for will usually tow the party line.
I mean how else did the Republicans keep a filibuster when some of the individual Republican senators previously said they supported the legislation?
And if proportional representative irks you so much, just suggest STV (single transferable vote) or IRV instead as that is more in the classic sense of voting for individuals.
But the question is, does this make the quality of government better?
If we are using quality on efficiency governmental metrics, you could just install a dictator and get the job done quite easier and quicker.
What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.
Sure, this will add another cook in the kitchen, but we need more alternative views than just two.
And its not like Germany, Israel, and many other of the prop rep governments go into political deadlocks all the time and have their government shutdown.
If the Prime Minister cannot form a coalition, then he has to call for an election and/or resign until a functional one does.
Proportional Representation assumes that you're voting for a Political Party. We don't actually do that in the USA. We cast votes for individuals.
When you vote for candidates on the Federal (and mostly state level) you are voting for the party like it or not because either the candidate tows the party line or you don't get funding, committee seats, or campaign help.
Notice how both parties have usually voted down the party line in congress even when the candidates previously said their stances are.
And in theory in a proportional rep government, an individual can create a one man political party in which they have complete control over, so when you vote for that party, you vote for that individual.
If they got more than one seat, they could simply get a college to fill in or just write that that persons vote in parliament is 2 seats or whatever.
The people in power never cared that only 40% of the people vote and in fact it shows that if no one bothered to come to polls to vote against them, then it most likely occurs to them that they should keep doing the things they way they want to.
I mean... People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest either, much less take arms up against a legitimate government.
The Green Party in Germany comes to mind. The Pirate party is really close to getting seats in the Swedish Parliament.
Also... Israel had a 3rd party called Kadima which not only was founded in 2005, but was able to get a majority coalition in the Israeli parliament shortly thereafter.
Proportional representation clearly is the best way to get 3rd party candidates and political turnover over any other system that has been tried.
Oh and I almost forgot to plug Fairvote.org which promotes NPV (National Popular Vote as opposed to electoral vote) and IRV (instant runoff vote) reforms which both would help 3rd party cannidates.
Surprisingly enough I believe several states are experimenting with IRV this election (read more in the fair vote page) and NPV is getting traction in some state governments so that its not just about Ohio and Florida and that your vote will matter in a presidential campaign.
Really, we need electoral form on all levels so if you are aware of it and talk about it to other people the more likely it will put as a major issue to the national level.
Then we can start having more serious 3rd parties.
It doesn't matter who you elect - voting simply creates the illusion of consent.
Not exactly true.
There are key differences in Democrat and Republicans.
That said, I disagree with both of them, but I vote against the party which I see the greatest threat to my personal liberty and well being.
Which I view as of now as the Republicans as they seem to be willing to trade my personal rights and freedoms off to either security issues, morality through legislation, and or various other issues that affect me personally.
Its not that the Democrats do similar things, but they do less of them.
I originally, voted against the democrats in 2000 simply because of the DMCA, anti-violent video game laws, and anti-smoking legislation only to find out that the republicans created the Patriot act and various laws that were started to make it feel like we were heading towards a Police state.
So given the choice of living in a Nanny State vs a Police state, I'd rather put up with a Nanny state... (catch my drift)
You see... As one of the first major nationalized democracies which instituted the First past the post system which was seen as the best way to handle the situation as no one had tried this before in such a way. Although people like Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system, no one bothered to change it.
Now when European monarchies were overthrown and replaced by democracies over the 19th and 20th centuries a great deal of the instituted proportional democracies (most notably the Wiemar republic) simply because it is more mathematically fair and prevents the dominance of 2 major political parties we face in our first past the post system.
Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.
Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination.
in theory any state could make murder legal (though assault on Federal employees is technically a federal crime) but there is the issue of federal funds.
DId you know most the laws that the Federal government passes actually is enforces by laws in the states (such as speed limits and drinking age laws) simply because the federal government makes the enforcement of the law a requirement for the state to receive federal money.
In theory any state can choose not to accept the law and not receive the money tied to do.
I think Montana does this with their speed limit law.
Keep in mind drug laws are passed and enforced by the state governments and not directly by the Federal government. If the states refuse to enforce the laws, then the Federal government won't really have the means to do anything about it.
Even if they were able to make it a federal crime, if the states refused to pay the bill to house the prisoners or have their officers not spend the effort to make the arrests, it is unlikely the Federal agents will be able to fill in the gap.
Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference.
I'm going to loose my moderation here but I want to point out something interesting.
There is specific wording in the US constitution that prohibits the US Federal government from interfering with the collection of state taxes.
In so much so that the US gov cannot collect income taxes from income received from interest on state municipal bonds (great way to avoid taxes btw).
Now the only way the US can specifically outlaw pot and prevent California from taxing it is via a constitutional amendment (its what they did for the alcohol prohibition after all) and its really doubtful such a thing would pass in this political environment.
I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes, but I think whoever put Prop 19 together was smart in that they specifically made the law to tax it and provide income to the state which historically cannot be legally interfered by the US Federal government.
Had their been no tax clause, the Feds could have shut it down,
In a galaxy that existed almost 10 billion years before the Earth cooled, I cannot imagine that we would be the first intelligence. The idea seems so preposterous as to not merit discussion.
Perhaps natural evolution favors non-technological species that evolve simply to consume bio-mass? (like dinosaurs)
And it takes a freak of nature (say a meteor strike) that not only kills off the larger species but doesn't kill off the smaller ones as well.
Fermi's Paradox bugs the hell out of me. I can't see how we are unique... but I also can't see why the evidence of other civilizations wouldn't be obvious.
The most simplest resolution to the Fermi paradox is... (drum roll)
We just happen to be first.
Or very close to be being first.
Once we (or someone close to us in the tech race) achieve inter-solar system space flight, it will be only a mater of time before the whole galaxy is colonized.
Now it might be likely that most species die off or choose not to do this, but it only takes one species to colonize everything over time.
You can't just leave everything the same or after a while players get tired of the same old thing and decide, "Screw it, I'm going to play something else."
Basically its devs like CCP and Blizzard on a panel who basically come out and say, if you want an MMO to last more than 10 years, you have to please the core player base.
They already have passed their genes on (or, if not, they will soon), so, as far as evolution is concerned, they won. A billionaire bachelor geek loses the evolution game to a former jock living in a trailer who has three kids with his first wife and two more with his mistress.
actually one minor correction... the Pirate party did not get seats on the Swedish parliment but rather the EU one... The are coming very close to getting seats tho.
So... if neither right nor left can provide a decent alternative. What could be done? What about a party that ISN'T a party. What about a party leader, who is NOT going to be running the country? What about a party that ends the party system?
The US has referendums, they have forced some intresting politics because people could vote for a candidate of party X and then force a series of policies on him that totally disagreed with the party line. California's drug laws for instance.
What if in Holland instead of voting for a party, we got a 100% referendum system. No more prime-minister, no more backroom deals, no whips (they are called that because they keep the party in line, with the new government having a very small majority, they became far more important because if a single person from the 3 parties votes against, the opposition wins. This means elected officials don't vote according to what their voters want but as the party orders them. This is actually highly illegal in dutch law. Every elected official must be able to vote without fear of consequence).
A couple of points as you may not be exactly familiar with the US system.
The US on the Federal level does not have referendums. We do have constitutional amendments but they have to be voted on by the state legislators.
States on an individual levels do have the ability to have referendums (see Proposition 19.
But not all states have this ability...
Also it is noted that California (because of its referendum system) is the state with the highest debt as it cannot pass a budget without a super majority.
And lastly... It is illegal in Germany to have referendums as it was the method that Hitler would pass the laws to absolve the German democracy (so keep that in mind... might not be the best resolution to a functioning democracy).
That said... You should take a look at Proportional Representation where if handled properly gives many 3rd parties to the government.
Most notable are Sweden and Israel. Which the Pirate party got seats in Sweden and in Israel a 3rd party that was started and within one year had a majority in Parliament as protest of the existing.
Any first past the post or weighted, simply do not work.
Slashdot Mirror
Food Stamps: Are they for food or cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets? Are the recipients actually deserving of them.
Farm Subsidies: Are they for keeping wealthy mega-farms profitable?
Corporate welfare: Is it to keep the lobbyists appeased?
Serioiusly... The USPS, public education system, and food stamps are a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate pork barrel that goes to companies like Haliburton etc.
Second, why in the hell would you tell ANYONE to type out a registry key anyway?
Norton Symantec Endpoint Protection has hosed the TCP/IP stack on your VP's laptop while he's in his hotel room on the other side of the country.
He needs to pull his PowerPoint presentation off the server that his office assistant worked on last night.
You're unable to remote in or email him the registry fix due to the glaring obvious problem that he has no TCP/IP connection and his local tech turned off Window's Restore on his image for some unknown reason.
Obviously the only thing you can do for him is to read out the entry over the phone... Just saying because its happened.
The registry is a database file, why can't be backed up?
Thats easy...
Lets say (and this has happened more than once to offices that I have had the pleasure of working in):
Program A is installed and messes with the registry.
Program B is installed and messes with the registry.
Program A runs an update and messes with the registry.
Something happens (malware, hotfix, windows update) and Program A has to be fixed with a registry backup restore at the time of its installation.
Now Program B is screwed up because its missing its entries. Oh lets put the registry restore back after its installed, but now we're missing the registry entries for the update.
Actually, I've never worked in an office where restoring the registry was considered to be a reasonable option and usually considered a last resort because so many things can go wrong.
Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary. Crowd bomb theater is short (BOOM!) and cleaned up quickly.
I'm too tired to find the article, but its what the Hamas suicide bombers did to Israeli soldiers after they setup security checkpoints.
As they couldn't sneak bombs into Israel anymore (that easy), they decided to just target the soldiers directly at the gates.
Of course the jokes on them as many checkpoints involve soldiers sitting in a blast proof bunker who do the checkpoint screenings via CCTV and a loudspeaker.
I take a dice and throw it in the air. Even if I give you the starting terms and the exact forces used to throw the cube, you still cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, tell me what number it will land on. Even with everything known, there are things we cannot calculate.
I'm pretty sure if we had a marker on the cube and a hi-speed camera plus a rather fast image processing computer, we could give you an answer before the dice had landed. Also it wouldn't be too hard to create a robot arm to throw the dice with exactly the same force and position each time.
Dice have to adhere to the laws of physics just like everything else. Its just when humans throw them, there are so many variables that it seems random.
Now, when we start talking about particle decay or trying to determine the position of an electron.
Then yeah... We can start talking about random.
Norway and Sweden are not police state hell holes...
And secondly, the dems aren't even remotely socialist.
Then again, neither is the Communist Chinese government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Foundations_of_voting_theory
Well to be fair, he didn't really point out the problems as he proposed a different method. Of course he did a lot back then such as proposing 20 years in between constitutional conventions to re-approve the constitution (or to add or remove depending).
And in Europe its called the D'Hondt method, but its basically the same as Jefferson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method#D.27Hondt_and_Jefferson
Personally I didn't know Jefferson had created a different voting method until I saw it in a computer game called "Victoria 2" in which you could change your government voting system so I had to look it up.
Well of COURSE most people want their own opinions to be the only ones in power. I would love it if I had complete and total control and congress voted in lockstep with me.
I think you misunderstood me.
I want my personal political view in government, rather than in control of government.
Let's say we have 30% demss, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 20% socialists in congress.
I'd be much more happy with that than the current government which as you say Ron Paul has to parade as a Republican (which he himself has said the only reason he is one, is because a non 2 party candidate has no realistic ability to win).
That said, there is nothing preventing individuals running as parties in these systems.
I mentioned Kadima earlier, which was founded by Sharon after he had a break with his existing political party. When people voted for Kadima they were voting for Sharon.
Same thing is still happening in the states like it or not... Just without 3rd parties.
People are simply voting Republican because they support Sarah Palin and people are voting Democrat because they support Obama.
I'm pretty sure I voted for people today that I have no idea who are, but I know whoever I vote for will usually tow the party line.
I mean how else did the Republicans keep a filibuster when some of the individual Republican senators previously said they supported the legislation?
And if proportional representative irks you so much, just suggest STV (single transferable vote) or IRV instead as that is more in the classic sense of voting for individuals.
But the question is, does this make the quality of government better?
If we are using quality on efficiency governmental metrics, you could just install a dictator and get the job done quite easier and quicker.
What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.
Sure, this will add another cook in the kitchen, but we need more alternative views than just two.
And its not like Germany, Israel, and many other of the prop rep governments go into political deadlocks all the time and have their government shutdown.
If the Prime Minister cannot form a coalition, then he has to call for an election and/or resign until a functional one does.
Proportional Representation assumes that you're voting for a Political Party. We don't actually do that in the USA. We cast votes for individuals.
When you vote for candidates on the Federal (and mostly state level) you are voting for the party like it or not because either the candidate tows the party line or you don't get funding, committee seats, or campaign help.
Notice how both parties have usually voted down the party line in congress even when the candidates previously said their stances are.
And in theory in a proportional rep government, an individual can create a one man political party in which they have complete control over, so when you vote for that party, you vote for that individual.
If they got more than one seat, they could simply get a college to fill in or just write that that persons vote in parliament is 2 seats or whatever.
When you vote, you legitimize the process.
I've never understood this argument.
The people in power never cared that only 40% of the people vote and in fact it shows that if no one bothered to come to polls to vote against them, then it most likely occurs to them that they should keep doing the things they way they want to.
I mean... People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest either, much less take arms up against a legitimate government.
You could in theory vote democrat until the republicans become so marginalized they are forced to become "republican-lite".
Personally, I'd vote Republican in a snap if they weren't so pushy about legislating morality.
Yes actually...
The Green Party in Germany comes to mind.
The Pirate party is really close to getting seats in the Swedish Parliament.
Also... Israel had a 3rd party called Kadima which not only was founded in 2005, but was able to get a majority coalition in the Israeli parliament shortly thereafter.
Proportional representation clearly is the best way to get 3rd party candidates and political turnover over any other system that has been tried.
Why don't you go to the poling booth and see if there are any 3rd candidates on the ballot and vote for them?
I'm always surprised to see libertarian, socialist, and green parties on tickets.
Sometimes I even write in people just because.
Also, sometimes they try to push some interesting laws through via propositions.
I actually take the time to read them and vote accordingly.
I'm sure if you live in California you've got one right now that you should be considering.
Oh and I almost forgot to plug Fairvote.org which promotes NPV (National Popular Vote as opposed to electoral vote) and IRV (instant runoff vote) reforms which both would help 3rd party cannidates.
Surprisingly enough I believe several states are experimenting with IRV this election (read more in the fair vote page) and NPV is getting traction in some state governments so that its not just about Ohio and Florida and that your vote will matter in a presidential campaign.
Really, we need electoral form on all levels so if you are aware of it and talk about it to other people the more likely it will put as a major issue to the national level.
Then we can start having more serious 3rd parties.
It doesn't matter who you elect - voting simply creates the illusion of consent.
Not exactly true.
There are key differences in Democrat and Republicans.
That said, I disagree with both of them, but I vote against the party which I see the greatest threat to my personal liberty and well being.
Which I view as of now as the Republicans as they seem to be willing to trade my personal rights and freedoms off to either security issues, morality through legislation, and or various other issues that affect me personally.
Its not that the Democrats do similar things, but they do less of them.
I originally, voted against the democrats in 2000 simply because of the DMCA, anti-violent video game laws, and anti-smoking legislation only to find out that the republicans created the Patriot act and various laws that were started to make it feel like we were heading towards a Police state.
So given the choice of living in a Nanny State vs a Police state, I'd rather put up with a Nanny state... (catch my drift)
Of course if you really want change, you should start raising awareness of STV and Proportional Representation
You see... As one of the first major nationalized democracies which instituted the First past the post system which was seen as the best way to handle the situation as no one had tried this before in such a way. Although people like Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system, no one bothered to change it.
Now when European monarchies were overthrown and replaced by democracies over the 19th and 20th centuries a great deal of the instituted proportional democracies (most notably the Wiemar republic) simply because it is more mathematically fair and prevents the dominance of 2 major political parties we face in our first past the post system.
Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.
Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination.
in theory any state could make murder legal (though assault on Federal employees is technically a federal crime) but there is the issue of federal funds.
DId you know most the laws that the Federal government passes actually is enforces by laws in the states (such as speed limits and drinking age laws) simply because the federal government makes the enforcement of the law a requirement for the state to receive federal money.
In theory any state can choose not to accept the law and not receive the money tied to do.
I think Montana does this with their speed limit law.
Keep in mind drug laws are passed and enforced by the state governments and not directly by the Federal government. If the states refuse to enforce the laws, then the Federal government won't really have the means to do anything about it.
Even if they were able to make it a federal crime, if the states refused to pay the bill to house the prisoners or have their officers not spend the effort to make the arrests, it is unlikely the Federal agents will be able to fill in the gap.
Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference.
I'm going to loose my moderation here but I want to point out something interesting.
There is specific wording in the US constitution that prohibits the US Federal government from interfering with the collection of state taxes.
In so much so that the US gov cannot collect income taxes from income received from interest on state municipal bonds (great way to avoid taxes btw).
Now the only way the US can specifically outlaw pot and prevent California from taxing it is via a constitutional amendment (its what they did for the alcohol prohibition after all) and its really doubtful such a thing would pass in this political environment.
I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes, but I think whoever put Prop 19 together was smart in that they specifically made the law to tax it and provide income to the state which historically cannot be legally interfered by the US Federal government.
Had their been no tax clause, the Feds could have shut it down,
In a galaxy that existed almost 10 billion years before the Earth cooled, I cannot imagine that we would be the first intelligence. The idea seems so preposterous as to not merit discussion.
Perhaps natural evolution favors non-technological species that evolve simply to consume bio-mass? (like dinosaurs)
And it takes a freak of nature (say a meteor strike) that not only kills off the larger species but doesn't kill off the smaller ones as well.
Fermi's Paradox bugs the hell out of me. I can't see how we are unique... but I also can't see why the evidence of other civilizations wouldn't be obvious.
The most simplest resolution to the Fermi paradox is... (drum roll)
We just happen to be first.
Or very close to be being first.
Once we (or someone close to us in the tech race) achieve inter-solar system space flight, it will be only a mater of time before the whole galaxy is colonized.
Now it might be likely that most species die off or choose not to do this, but it only takes one species to colonize everything over time.
You can't just leave everything the same or after a while players get tired of the same old thing and decide, "Screw it, I'm going to play something else."
Hrm... Check this article out:
http://www.massively.com/2010/10/09/gdco-2010-running-mmos-for-the-long-haul/#continued
Basically its devs like CCP and Blizzard on a panel who basically come out and say, if you want an MMO to last more than 10 years, you have to please the core player base.
If you don't do that, then you get bankrupt.
They already have passed their genes on (or, if not, they will soon), so, as far as evolution is concerned, they won. A billionaire bachelor geek loses the evolution game to a former jock living in a trailer who has three kids with his first wife and two more with his mistress.
Hrm... Maybe that is why so many men are gay.
The only winning move is not to play.
actually one minor correction... the Pirate party did not get seats on the Swedish parliment but rather the EU one... The are coming very close to getting seats tho.
So... if neither right nor left can provide a decent alternative. What could be done? What about a party that ISN'T a party. What about a party leader, who is NOT going to be running the country? What about a party that ends the party system?
The US has referendums, they have forced some intresting politics because people could vote for a candidate of party X and then force a series of policies on him that totally disagreed with the party line. California's drug laws for instance.
What if in Holland instead of voting for a party, we got a 100% referendum system. No more prime-minister, no more backroom deals, no whips (they are called that because they keep the party in line, with the new government having a very small majority, they became far more important because if a single person from the 3 parties votes against, the opposition wins. This means elected officials don't vote according to what their voters want but as the party orders them. This is actually highly illegal in dutch law. Every elected official must be able to vote without fear of consequence).
A couple of points as you may not be exactly familiar with the US system.
The US on the Federal level does not have referendums. We do have constitutional amendments but they have to be voted on by the state legislators.
States on an individual levels do have the ability to have referendums (see Proposition 19.
But not all states have this ability...
Also it is noted that California (because of its referendum system) is the state with the highest debt as it cannot pass a budget without a super majority.
And lastly... It is illegal in Germany to have referendums as it was the method that Hitler would pass the laws to absolve the German democracy (so keep that in mind... might not be the best resolution to a functioning democracy).
That said... You should take a look at Proportional Representation where if handled properly gives many 3rd parties to the government.
Most notable are Sweden and Israel. Which the Pirate party got seats in Sweden and in Israel a 3rd party that was started and within one year had a majority in Parliament as protest of the existing.
Any first past the post or weighted, simply do not work.
The UK is currently working on a more proportional system as of now I think, but it might not be enough.
No, you're not happy to support it, considering that your company has some sort of vendetta against Flash.
Eh? Hold on, last I remember all my Windows and OS X installs never installed flash? I had to go out to the internet to get it.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought flash was something optional rather than pre-installed on any computer out there?