23rd July 2004, 6:23 PM
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.