Now here's one for you T.L. I wish we had never passed the last admendment to the Constitution limiting the President to 2 terms. I would have Gladly endured the economic hardships that would have resulted from no tax cuts, 9/11, and everything else we as a nation have gone through, for the total and complete change that would have happened today if the policies of the former administration had remained in power. But the cookie didn't crumble that way.

What makes us differant then most of the other democracies around the world is the winner has a set amount of time to inact anything, then weither the winner likes it or not there is a new election. I beleive in the 1850's for a short period of time there were 3 parties, one party split in two, the other remained. The splitting party lost their shorts, and soon reformed into one party.

Our parties have split and reformed again, and it is all natural evolution.

The "winner take all" scenario you mention didn't really apply until the 20th century, because the President had much less power. However, during the 20th century, Agencies, Administrative Law, and Regulations came into being. Whereas in prior years you had the President, his cabinet, and a few specific government regulators (like the ICC), in the 20th Century Congress created litterally hundreds of agencies and put them under the control of the executive.

Our government is about 75% executive these days, so when a new Pres. comes in, he sweeps the top jobs from all the agencies and puts his cronies in charge of everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to the SBA to the EPA to the FCC. It's ridiculous how much power the president has, and in my mind it's a perversion of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

As you may guess, I'm accordingly not a big fan of the "winner take all" mentality.

How would you introduce a third or fourth party when the political arena is so dominated by the Democrats and the Republicans? A third party have massive obstacle to overcome if they aim for the White House. ALOT of Americans would all of a sudden have to choose to vote for this party for them to have any chance.

Inertresting article, but the writer doesn't understand the U.S. psycie, we were and are set up for cycles in our national ideas. That very thing was inbeded from the very begining. Winner takes all for a short period of time, then they must win again inorder to continue, the loser has the oppotunity to win in a few short years and change the way the nation goes. All that is asked is they we agree these are the rules and we have the guts to follow the rules. Today we may change, today we may not change that is the way it goes. As for the rest I believe PM Blair summed it up best when he said The measure of a great country is not how strong they are, but how many people want to get in to it. (paraphrased by me) And believe me we have the masses beat'n at the doors to get in. Remember that green lady standing in a harbour, we'll take your dregs and turn them into our jewels.

God bless the U.S.A. may she never fall, a skinned knee every once in a while isn't a bad thing through. :D

[ 11-02-2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

It has always been a winner take all, did not George Washington decide who would make up his cabinet? Same for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, remember the Monroe doctorine(sp?)? Did not Monroe get to decide what that doctorine was going to be because he won? or did the American people decide to alow Monroe to dictate doctorine out of the kindness of their hearts? All you are saying is the pie is bigger then it used to be, no arguement here, I am saying the winner gets the pie NO MATTER how big it is. I don't care if it is one pie, two pie, three pie, four, who's not ready howl'r for more. The spoils go to the winner, for 4 years, then we get to play this game agian. :D

Well T.L you're a lawyer start the process to change the US constitution so the gov't is more like a Parlament/PM system and if you can get it done then guess what you have just particapated in the US's winner take all system. ;)

<font color = lightgreen>John, what Timber and I are trying to pursue vis-a-vis more--and larger--parties is because when you look past the latest sound bytes from the campiagn trail what you find is that there are no fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans. Over the last 40 years the stock market has risen at an annual rate of 11%, pay rates have risen, crime rates have fluctuated (Dallas has triple the crime rate of New York City per 100,000 residents?! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] ), etc. regardless of which party controls either the Presidency, the Congress, or both. They are identical, a clear indication of needing a change if ever there were one.

Imagine how you would feel if you could buy all your food, clothing, gasoline, etc. from only two stores and you didn't like one store? I, for one, don't like having only limited options.</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Az, I have nothing against 3 or 4 parties, but with the current make-up of the USA 3 or 4 parties would be a terrible thing. There would be chaos, the US political system is not designed for coalitions it is designed for a winner take all, for a set amount of time. Then the people can change and pick a new winner to govern for a set period of time. Unlike most of the Parlament/PM systems where the PM must mantain a majority coalition in at least one of the houses, in the USA the Executive can govern without a majority in either house, if the executive has a majority or not doesn't matter he serves his term until the time is up or he passes away which ever comes first. Our founding fathers where familular with the Parlament/PM system and Chose not to go that route. They chose the route of a set term, if you win you get the right to decide what happens in the gov't, if you lose you try again when the time comes for the next election. Personnaly I'd love to see the Dem split into 2 or 3 smaller parties, that would be a dream come true. :D

<font color = lightgreen>I agree. No one wants to see the endless bog of a coalition government, but having a few more choices would be nice.

Actually, I would be happy simply for policies that are actually though out by someone with a modicum of intelligence! :rolleyes: </font>

The maximum life of the UK Government is 5 years. Is that a long time? It doesn't seem that much longer than 4 years.

The drawbacks of the US system include the fact that everyone knows when the elections will be. It seems to me that the last 2 years of the first term involve almost full time campaigning when efforts would be better spent running the country. In the case of a second term the Government can basically do what they want because they don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Not all countries with a Parlamentary system have two houses, and a political party don't need a coalition if they can get a majority of the votes. Further, many coalitions are dominated by one party who more or less sets the agenda. The other parties might just be "tag-alongs" who cooperate to have at least some measure of political influence. They could leave, but then they would lose what power they had.