+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: This land belongs to me... (/showthread.php?tid=2058)
Pages:
1
2
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 21st July 2004
This Land: A political flash animation.
It has President Bush and John Kerry. And a cameo by Howard Dean. Very funny.
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 21st July 2004
I think Howard Dean is marked for life,Think about it people are still laughing at that scream months after that election.
I wish we had more of this kind of stuff in canada, The Air farce was funny they were impersonation masters,They did everthing from canadian Pm to american presidents to Tony Blair.
This Cartoon made it on CNN.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2004
I just saw a thing on TV about this... it was last night. On CBS Up To The Minuite News at about 3:30 in the morning. :) Haven't seen it though...
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 21st July 2004
That was fucking hilarious :D
This land belongs to me... - Fittisize - 21st July 2004
John Kerry-he won three purple hearts!
This land belongs to me... - EdenMaster - 21st July 2004
That was hilarious, and brings about the thing I hate most about John Kerry: The fact that he flaunts being a war heor so much that I don't even care anymore. I have great respect for war veterans and am thankful for his service to our country, but WE GET IT! You're a war hero. Great.
What have you done for me lately?
This land belongs to me... - Fittisize - 21st July 2004
What have any of the other war veterans done for you lately?
This land belongs to me... - Dark Lord Neo - 21st July 2004
At least Kerry showed up for his military service
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2004
I would have no problem with Bush dodging military service if he was then against waging war... but he didn't fight himself but is all in favor of sending others. That's not right.
This land belongs to me... - EdenMaster - 21st July 2004
Fittisize Wrote:What have any of the other war veterans done for you lately?
Not rubbed it in my face.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2004
They're going a little much on it, but it certainly is a good comparison with Bush... and it's a small extension to go from that to saying how there are so many Republican hawks who dodged the fighting while the Democrats who did fight are now much more for international support and not waging war without good reason...
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 21st July 2004
Good job on the voices.
Kerry would be better off braging about the big hole in his ass then a bunch of medals he got in the navy.
I wonder how many republicans voted for Kerry? After all Weltall wanted to vote for Dean so the Dems could have a weak leader. To me that hole thing was retarded everyone just wanted to vote for the winner and didnt care or have any regards to who they were voting for.
I pity americans, You got the Cowboy and the stoner as your only choice.
Kerry is scary, He voted agaist the first gulf war but voted for the second one, He goes from a hippie activist to a chimp in only a decade.
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 22nd July 2004
What's really scary is that no one out there will vote for Kerry. Almost everyone who votes this November will vote for Bush or against Bush. And those who vote against Bush really don't seem to care WHO gets in. They don't really seem to care how things are done, just so long as Bush isn't doing them.
Go Nader!
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
Nader... what a sad man. He used to be a great consumer advocate but in the last few years blew every shred of his credibility. His insistence that he wasn't the critical difference between Bush and Gore, in several states, is a continuing farce. And more recently, he seems to have lost it. He's now accepting help from Republicans to get on ballots (who are only doing it to take votes from Kerry), while Democrats try to keep him off them... I guess he thinks 'by whatever means', but he's lost any credibility among a lot of people by acting like he has. As I said, sad.
As for 'for Bush/against Bush', that's Kerry's best hope. I wouldn't call him the best candidate ever, but compared to Bush... just about anyone the Democrats could put up against Bush would be a million years better.
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 22nd July 2004
That's the problem. Democrats insist that everything Bush does is wrong, and that he makes everything worse, but it seems none of them have the balls or brains to offer any solutions themselves. Or, like in Kerry's case, on many things he wouldn't change hardly anything to any great extent. And it's not even really animus towards Bush personally. Anyone who had won in 2000 that closely, no matter what policies he put into place as President, would be targeted this way, because the Democrats really don't have a real platform to run on.
If nothing else, at least Bush has a purpose. Democrats just seem to want to avenge their 2000 loss at any possible cost, damn the country and damn the consequences. That scares the hell out of me. Of course, if Kerry DID win, eventually they'd get tired of celebrating and realize that they run the place, and they'd waste no time screwing things up royally, like Democrats are wont to do when they get power.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
Sure anyone who won that way would be targetted. But with what Bush has done, among liberals it's certainly personal. Though Cheney and Ashcroft are considered worse than Bush... Bush is not too smart and doesn't seem to mind getting pushed around by people like that.
I won't even start on the charge that Democrats have no platform because it's so obviously ridiculous. The Democratic party and Kerry have a lot of things they'd do that they have planeed out... and have you noticed that while most of Bush's ads are Kerry-bashing, more of Kerrys are about issues and not only attacking Bush?
Quote:If nothing else, at least Bush has a purpose. Democrats just seem to want to avenge their 2000 loss at any possible cost, damn the country and damn the consequences. That scares the hell out of me. Of course, if Kerry DID win, eventually they'd get tired of celebrating and realize that they run the place, and they'd waste no time screwing things up royally, like Democrats are wont to do when they get power.
Bush needs to lose because the consequences of four more years of this would be even more dire than the first four. He's done a number on innumerable issues and with more years he could finish off the last fifty years of environmental protections, ruin the budget for the next century with the deficit, make sure the American poor can never get out of their current bad situation, get the world to hate us so much they won't cooperate even if we DO change administrations... who knows what, but it'd almost certainly be one of the worst things that's ever happened to this country politically.
And Democrats do a much, much better job of things like domestic policy than Republicans. And Kerry isn't exactly weak on foreign policy either...
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 22nd July 2004
Quote:make sure the American poor can never get out of their current bad situation
This is a shining example of what I mean. Since the New Deal, not once has a Democratic 'solution' to poverty ever made any real improvement for anyone.
Of course, providing their entire living to them free of charge would not make them technically poor, it would merely bring everyone else down to their level. No problem!
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
And the New Deal was probably the best thing that had ever happened to the American poor... which is of course why Republicans wish that it had never happened and try to restrict any attempts at modernizing such laws.
For instance, minimum wage. You can't live on $5.15 an hour! They froze the inflation adjustment some years back... I've heard that if they had kept that up it'd now be about $8.50. Kerry's plan doesn't go that far -- to $7-something in the next few years -- but it's better than nothing... much, much better. So Bush is opposed. Poor people shouldn't get chances or any semblance of fairness.
This land belongs to me... - Dark Jaguar - 22nd July 2004
I still have huge issues with people claiming Nader ruined things for the democrats. They say it like little kids. Really, so what if some of them would have voted for someone else if Nader wasn't a candidate? They voted for who they WANTED, and honestly why is that such a terrible thing? People SHOULD vote for the candidate they want! They shouldn't be guilt tripped into thinking that if they don't vote for the two main parties, they are being unAmerican. That sort of attitude about the whole thing is just totally sickening. Vote for what you want, don't worry about how others are voting.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
Fine, they should be able to vote for the person they want... but Nader has tried to deny that his existence in the race lost it for the Democrats. Just look at the numbers for Florida, or New Hampshire, or another state or two, and you'd see how absurd that is... he isn't drawing mostly from Republicans and people who wouldn't otherwise vote! Yes, voting with who is the best candidate would be nice, but there are consequences... and in this country, with just two parties, the effect of a third-party vote is to vote against the major-party candidate you would otherwise have voted for. Normally this doesn't matter because margins are large, but when it's this close we see how clearly it matters...
My biggest problem was with all the people in 2000 who said Bush and Gore were the same. It was SO obviously not true, utterly ridiculously false, and it encouraged voter disintrest. Not good. And look what we got. Absolute proof that Bush and Gore are very different people indeed.
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 22nd July 2004
If Nader wants to run let him. It's a free country.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
You're just saying that because you know he'll take a lot more votes from Gore than Bush...
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 22nd July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:Fine, they should be able to vote for the person they want... but Nader has tried to deny that his existence in the race lost it for the Democrats. Just look at the numbers for Florida, or New Hampshire, or another state or two, and you'd see how absurd that is... he isn't drawing mostly from Republicans and people who wouldn't otherwise vote! Yes, voting with who is the best candidate would be nice, but there are consequences... and in this country, with just two parties, the effect of a third-party vote is to vote against the major-party candidate you would otherwise have voted for. Normally this doesn't matter because margins are large, but when it's this close we see how clearly it matters...
My biggest problem was with all the people in 2000 who said Bush and Gore were the same. It was SO obviously not true, utterly ridiculously false, and it encouraged voter disintrest. Not good. And look what we got. Absolute proof that Bush and Gore are very different people indeed.
Yeah, Gore would have been a terrible disaster.
Thank God it never happened.
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 22nd July 2004
Quote:You're just saying that because you know he'll take a lot more votes from Gore than Bush...
Well, you said what you did because you know he'll take take less votes from Bush than Kerry!
Who would have thought that something funny like that flash animation would cause such a heated debate? Oh well. *watched flash animation again* *laughs softly at the foolishness of man*
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
Quote: Yeah, Gore would have been a terrible disaster.
Thank God it never happened.
The fact that you believe that is one of the most depressing things I can imagine.
Quote:Well, you said what you did because you know he'll take take less votes from Bush than Kerry!
No, I said it because it's depressing to see a once great consumer advocate get so caught up in his own ego that he forgets why he ever entered the political realm...
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 22nd July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:The fact that you believe that is one of the most depressing things I can imagine.Awesome! Go drown your sorrows in alcohol and drive home!
Seriously, he's a nutcase. You watch him lately? He's like Deaniac, except that no one ever really gave a shit about him in the first place. He's a half-baked tree-hugging wierdo and his wife is ugly.
This land belongs to me... - Dark Lord Neo - 22nd July 2004
Voting for third parties can be a good thing.
In Canada the most things have always been acomplished when the third parties have held the balance of power in the House. It keeps the main parties from getting to cocky.
In the last Canadian election many voters decided to vote for third parties, and it made it so that the Liberals now have a minority governemnt, so now, unlike the last ten years the liberals can't just do what they want, they have to consult with other parties in order to do anything. IN addition having such a large percentage of Canadians voter for third parties (I think it was over a third of the population) sent a message to the two major parties that they have to change things.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 22nd July 2004
Ah, but in Canada, and most of the Western world since most of it has parliamentary systems, third parties actually have power. When no one party has a majority other parties can have quite a lot of power indeed. Our government just doesn't work that way, for better or worse...
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 23rd July 2004
Things in the U.S would be better off if you adopted the british and Canadian parliamentary, IF you had it You could still deny Bush a majority and still hold him by the neck even if you lossed the election.To me its real democracy the Parliament represents the outcome of the voter election.3rd parties like Nader or the reform wouldnt be dismissed and forgotten after the election they could better be abled to voice the issues they ran for.
If memmory serves right Weltall you supported Gore in 2000, Cheered him on.
You went into this Conservative phase and started to support Bush loyaly after 9/11.
As for Al Gore's current state, He left the nomination of course nobody cares about him nearly as much anymore . If he ran again I think he wouldnt be a laughing matter , You couldnt bash him for not being on top of the terrorism as Vice President because Bush waisnt either untill 9/11.
This land belongs to me... - Dark Jaguar - 23rd July 2004
And so what if they vote for him and "if he wasn't there, gore would have totally won!". I won't even try saying we can't know that for sure, because that's not relevent to my point. My point is that you can't get mad at someone for running just because they happen to "spoil the election". It is the equivalent of going to an auction and getting into a match against another person who looses but ends up making you pay a lot more for the object in the process. That's how auctions work! That's how elections work! People vote for who they want. and even if EVERY Nader voter would have voted Gore otherwise, it doesn't make Nader's existance there wrong. What if Nader DID win (I know, fat chance, but that's hardly the point)? Would you say he ruined everything then? I should hope not. So, that in mind, if it isn't wrong in the case where Nader actually DOES win, how is it SO wrong because this other thing occurs? You have to look at it from a perspective where you don't know the outcome. Is merely running THAT horrible a thing to do? I should hope not!
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 23rd July 2004
Nader was just the ant that broke the camel's back... all kinds of other things made the election unfair, like the Bush connection in Florida, mass black voter disenfranchisement in some southern states (and especially Florida), the Supreme Court going against all logic and fairness to elect the person they preferred, etc... Nader is just one thing. But it's a big one and his continued statements that he didn't directly help lead to Gore's defeat and that most of the people voting for him were either nonvoters or independants just doesn't hold up.
Our system is good. It's good having a balance of power. Three branches, all that have powers that balance eachother. In a parliamentary system one of them, the congress, has the vast majority of the power. The executive is a powerless figurehead in most such systems (not true in France, where the president is directly elected and is very powerful, but it's that way in all the British-styled parliaments). The judicial is the junior partner. I think it's better with a balance between them, and with a seperately elected executive. In a parliamentary system like Britain you don't vote for the leader! You just vote for your local representative... and if you like the representative and the party but dislike that leader there's nothing at all you can do about it. No, I'd rather have the executive elected by the people... now the Electoral College, that's a different story... we'd be better off without it, for sure. Direct election of nationwide votes would be the best way. Yes, it'd mean that small states like this one wouldn't matter nearly as much anymore and the whole political process would be turned upside down (since it wouldn't be 'this whole state will vote for one person or the other), but it'd probably be the better system. And quite unlikely to change anytime soon, unfortunately.
This land belongs to me... - Dark Jaguar - 23rd July 2004
Yeah, the monarch of england is in fact a useless figurehead, contrary to the hilarious way they call her "the most powerful leader in the world" in that one movie with the spy played by Mr. Bean.
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 23rd July 2004
Quote:but it'd probably be the better system.
Maybe. The Electoral College has done pretty well considering we've only had two, maybe three, situations where a candidate became president without the popular vote.
Quote:the Supreme Court going against all logic and fairness to elect the person they preferred
Normally I'd let that slide, but I've heard it so often that I'm just not going to anymore. The Supreme Court voted to STOP THE RECOUNT. That made Bush the winner because every single time they recounted the votes Bush was still the winner. But Democrats wanted the votes to be counted for as many times as it took for Gore, somehow, to wind up with more votes which, according to an independent count taken after the election was over, would not have happened. And anyway, Florida LAW states that ballet recounts MUST be complete by December 12, which they were. And on that day Bush had the most votes. Plain and simple.
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 23rd July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:Nader was just the ant that broke the camel's back... all kinds of other things made the election unfair, like the Bush connection in Florida, mass black voter disenfranchisement in some southern states (and especially Florida), the Supreme Court going against all logic and fairness to elect the person they preferred, etc... Nader is just one thing. But it's a big one and his continued statements that he didn't directly help lead to Gore's defeat and that most of the people voting for him were either nonvoters or independants just doesn't hold up.
Our system is good. It's good having a balance of power. Three branches, all that have powers that balance eachother. In a parliamentary system one of them, the congress, has the vast majority of the power. The executive is a powerless figurehead in most such systems (not true in France, where the president is directly elected and is very powerful, but it's that way in all the British-styled parliaments). The judicial is the junior partner. I think it's better with a balance between them, and with a seperately elected executive. In a parliamentary system like Britain you don't vote for the leader! You just vote for your local representative... and if you like the representative and the party but dislike that leader there's nothing at all you can do about it. No, I'd rather have the executive elected by the people... now the Electoral College, that's a different story... we'd be better off without it, for sure. Direct election of nationwide votes would be the best way. Yes, it'd mean that small states like this one wouldn't matter nearly as much anymore and the whole political process would be turned upside down (since it wouldn't be 'this whole state will vote for one person or the other), but it'd probably be the better system. And quite unlikely to change anytime soon, unfortunately.
Actually we still vote for our leader and the leader is always selected before the election and if he is a block head chances are his party and all its representatives wont win,The Leaders are the one's doing the public debates. Unless you live in Nunavuit since its all tribal council and they dont really have partys, When we vote its for the party, The extra Name on the side is Irelevant but it can be Relevant in some circumstances pending who is on it, But after the election that name wont mean shit in most cases. Really were putting in the guys we like and keeping the ones we dont like out of the goverment, Then have someone else decide it for us.Better then having some executive putting his chums in their.
In most cases its not the leader thats the problem its the party and sure the leader tries to clean it up but its somtimes to big to fix right away, Its why the Liberals got slaped after the scandals they were involved in and denied that power they enjoyed as a punnishment,But Martin still managed to win the election and their reduction in bill passing power helps to make sure they wont screw up again.
The PM or executive party leader can still suspend and fire individual members who get out of line.If the leader is out of Line the party can fire him and replace him, If he is Prime ministry its different he either Resigns and hands it over to the deputy Prime Ministry or further down the chain pending the situation, If the parliament votes a no confidence vote in the ruling party goverment they can start another election imediately.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 23rd July 2004
Quote:Normally I'd let that slide, but I've heard it so often that I'm just not going to anymore. The Supreme Court voted to STOP THE RECOUNT. That made Bush the winner because every single time they recounted the votes Bush was still the winner. But Democrats wanted the votes to be counted for as many times as it took for Gore, somehow, to wind up with more votes which, according to an independent count taken after the election was over, would not have happened. And anyway, Florida LAW states that ballet recounts MUST be complete by December 12, which they were. And on that day Bush had the most votes. Plain and simple.
They stopped the recount before actually knowing how everyone voted. That's a fact. It's also pretty clear from everything I've heard that if they had actually done a full recount Gore would have had the more votes despite all the stunts the Republicans pulled to disenfranchise and discount Democratic votes. The majority-Republican Supreme Court couldn't have that, so the decision went to Bush. He won the presidency not by the actual votes of the citizens but by a 5-4 decision in the court.
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 23rd July 2004
Once again superior Parliamentary system, They win by Seat count not by a big fucking ass pile of votes count, Each regional section to earn seats is divided into pieces so if you need to recount it wont be such a big problem since that little corner is just made of thousands of people not millions not as hard to keep track of.A Minor bout between local representatives is eaiser to keep tally of,Since there is low voter turn out its even easier.
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 23rd July 2004
Quote:They stopped the recount before actually knowing how everyone voted. That's a fact. It's also pretty clear from everything I've heard that if they had actually done a full recount Gore would have had the more votes despite all the stunts the Republicans pulled to disenfranchise and discount Democratic votes. The majority-Republican Supreme Court couldn't have that, so the decision went to Bush. He won the presidency not by the actual votes of the citizens but by a 5-4 decision in the court.
I was going to post something in response to that...but I didn't.
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 23rd July 2004
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2000/popular_vote.html
Total votes Bush/Cheney 50,456,062
Total Votes for Gore/Lieberman 50,996,582
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 23rd July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:They stopped the recount before actually knowing how everyone voted. That's a fact. It's also pretty clear from everything I've heard that if they had actually done a full recount Gore would have had the more votes despite all the stunts the Republicans pulled to disenfranchise and discount Democratic votes. The majority-Republican Supreme Court couldn't have that, so the decision went to Bush. He won the presidency not by the actual votes of the citizens but by a 5-4 decision in the court.
Translation: Boo hoo hoo, we hate losing :( *tears*
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 23rd July 2004
Quote: Translation: Boo hoo hoo, we hate losing *tears*
We only lost because the system was exploited to the greatest extent possible against us...
This land belongs to me... - Dark Lord Neo - 23rd July 2004
alien space marine Wrote:Once again superior Parliamentary system, They win by Seat count not by a big fucking ass pile of votes count, Each regional section to earn seats is divided into pieces so if you need to recount it wont be such a big problem since that little corner is just made of thousands of people not millions not as hard to keep track of.A Minor bout between local representatives is eaiser to keep tally of,Since there is low voter turn out its even easier.Even if the Liberals had wond less seats than another party in the election, but none of the parties won a majority the Govoner General would be required to ask Martin if he wanted to form a government since he's the incumbent Prime Minister.
How is that better?
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 24th July 2004
Quote:Total votes Bush/Cheney 50,456,062
Total Votes for Gore/Lieberman 50,996,582
A cadidate can win the election without the popular vote. It's difficult but far from impossible.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 24th July 2004
It happened around three times in the 1800s, but never in the 1900s...until 2000, that is. The previous 'most contested' election was probably 1878, I think. Hayes vs Tilden.
Oh yeah, and if the prime minister is chosen by parliament and the prime minister is the chief of state, it's not really any better than what we have. It's still state-by-state (or district-by-district) so you definitely could have the winning side have less votes. And you can't vote out someone without voting their party out in congress, which is something that doesn't happen that often... the Republicans have held the House since 1994. Before that I think the Democrats had had it for decades... The Senate is more back and forth, but if it was a parliamentary system there would be no Senate. Wouldn't the big states be happy then...
That's another thing. The Senate is there to provide balance between the bigger and smaller states. If you have one house and it's by population, like the house, the small states would get overwhelmed... who'd listen to a state with one representative when California has fifty?
This land belongs to me... - Weltall - 24th July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:We only lost because the system was exploited to the greatest extent possible against us...
:nodding:
This land belongs to me... - Great Rumbler - 24th July 2004
![[Image: babycry.jpg]](http://www.robynsnest.com/images/babycry.jpg)
This land belongs to me... - Dark Lord Neo - 24th July 2004
You can have an upper house in a parlimentry system.
Canada has a senate, though it has no real power because the members are appointed. But there is talk of reform and making the senate elected.
And Britain has the House of Lords
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 24th July 2004
The House of Lords is powerless and does nothing, so it's existance is just for historical reasons...
This land belongs to me... - Dark Lord Neo - 24th July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:The House of Lords is powerless and does nothing, so it's existance is just for historical reasons...But it could be reformed, and made demcratic. They already expelled a large portion of the hereditary lords a while ago, most that are left now were apointed to their positions
This land belongs to me... - alien space marine - 24th July 2004
A Black Falcon Wrote:It happened around three times in the 1800s, but never in the 1900s...until 2000, that is. The previous 'most contested' election was probably 1878, I think. Hayes vs Tilden.
Oh yeah, and if the prime minister is chosen by parliament and the prime minister is the chief of state, it's not really any better than what we have. It's still state-by-state (or district-by-district) so you definitely could have the winning side have less votes. And you can't vote out someone without voting their party out in congress, which is something that doesn't happen that often... the Republicans have held the House since 1994. Before that I think the Democrats had had it for decades... The Senate is more back and forth, but if it was a parliamentary system there would be no Senate. Wouldn't the big states be happy then...
That's another thing. The Senate is there to provide balance between the bigger and smaller states. If you have one house and it's by population, like the house, the small states would get overwhelmed... who'd listen to a state with one representative when California has fifty?
States that are richer and more heavily populated always get the most attention regardless of what system you use,Some States like Maine are lower priority dont get much attention they have fared worse then canada's smallest province at one time.
P.E.I is very tiny, But they always managed thanks to tourism and agricultural income. But the idea of merging with the other neighboring provinces was thought of,Not so much about represenation but funding as the main reason.With just 140,000 people thats not enough to keep on
par with the rest of the nation with such a low tax output.
Actually those representatives all come from different parties, Whats more fare having one Right winger represent you? Or both sides of the coin there for you? Its easier for 3rd parties to have chance into the goverment.
The Provinces real representative is the elected Premier (Govenor) and every few months they all meet together with the Prime Ministry and state their issues. With 50 states you couldnt do that like we can.
While it would be good if we could give more power to our senators that I agree completely,Yes we have Senators.Our system could still use some refining but who is to say ours doesnt have some unique benifits?
Our country is smaller so I understand the U.S functions differently for its own needs.
Another thing for a long time some parties represented just specific regional areas, The reform represented the west primarily untill it decided to move beyond that , They did it since the two main parties in their minds was only centralized in eastern canada and they felt they needed to get their issues more attention and they felt abandoned ,Since nobody gave a shit about those Corn pickers and oil beefs untill they made everyone give a shit.
If it waisnt for the monopoly of your two parties you would probaily see groups just representing regional areas and just there to get their demands heard.
This land belongs to me... - A Black Falcon - 24th July 2004
Quote:If it waisnt for the monopoly of your two parties you would probaily see groups just representing regional areas and just there to get their demands heard.
Parties have always have had different beliefs in different parts of the country, like southern Democrats vs. northern ones... but they just always tried to fit into two parties, because that's how it's done here.
Quote:States that are richer and more heavily populated always get the most attention regardless of what system you use,Some States like Maine are lower priority dont get much attention they have fared worse then canada's smallest province at one time.
True, but when there's a Senate with two from each state that is on equal footing with the House, it gives the small states a lot more power...