Unrelenting

[harrygunner]

"Britons must accept a greater loss of digital freedoms in return for greater safety ..."
   
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/06/digital-freedoms-terrorism-crime-uk 
   
I decided to never revisit England because of the surveillance. Probably the British will fold like they always have.
   
It's getting as bad here. Recently, someone in the FBI spewed this same rhetoric. We all know the quote about relinquishing freedom for safety.

[EdMc]

I've read England has more surveillance cameras than any other country in the world. Like most of Europe they've let uncontrolled immigration cause even more problems in their countries. Isn't working out so well.......I wonder how much longer the European Union will hold together. Oh well, we have plenty of problems of our own.

[harrygunner]

We do have problems of our own. As a kid I bought what this country is supposed to be about. And want it to live up to that.

Australia, which is as bad or worse than Britain has recently announced more government "protection" for its subjects at the price of freedom. I think we have to fight back against a clear agenda, using fear to gain more control.

[EdMc]

I understand very well, Harry. I grew up during a time military service was just something you knew you would have to do at some point. But that system became corrupted and finally abandoned like a lot of other things. The theory used to be that change could be made at the voting box. Today I see little real difference between the two parties on most policies. A lot of rhetoric but no great difference in actions. Both parties want 'Big Government' or their versions of the same thing.

[harrygunner]

I agree. Advertisers used to spin results like "In a blind taste test, fifty percent of Coca Cola drinkers switched to Pepsi". What the results really meant was the people in their sample couldn't tell the difference.

Same thing with our decades of nearly 50/50 votes on political candidates. We can't tell the difference.

[sqlbullet]

I understand very well, Harry. I grew up during a time military service was just something you knew you would have to do at some point. But that system became corrupted and finally abandoned like a lot of other things. The theory used to be that change could be made at the voting box. Today I see little real difference between the two parties on most policies. A lot of rhetoric but no great difference in actions. Both parties want 'Big Government' or their versions of the same thing.

And yet we all eat the line that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away".

We are a two party system because we buy into that lie.  The only wasted vote is one cast for someone who isn't your ideal candidate.

I think we could improve by requiring a plurality of vote to take office and having run-off elections.  Or creating a more complex voting booth experience where we vote multiple times for a given office.  For example, if there are three candidates, X, Y and Z you would vote in a theoretical race between X and Y, X and Z and Y and Z.  Then the candidate with the highest average vote would win. 

This would eliminate the Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ross Perot type election.  Almost no one who voted for Perot would have voted Clinton if Perot wasn't on the ballet.  We ended up with the least favored candidate who received less than 50% of the vote, but got the majority.

[EdMc]

[/quote]
This would eliminate the Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ross Perot type election.  Almost no one who voted for Perot would have voted Clinton if Perot wasn't on the ballet.  We ended up with the least favored candidate who received less than 50% of the vote, but got the majority.
[/quote]


Caught me didn't you? I voted for Perot both times knowing full well what would happen. The percentage of vote the first time put a little scare into the other parties....now long forgotten. I'd always hoped of the rise of a viable third party but the amount of money now involved in national campaigns makes that less and less feasible. Maybe starting at the lower levels and working upwards....one can dream.

[Pinsnscrews]

The problem is not with how We the People vote, the problem is how the Electoral College Votes. A number of times how the Vast Majority of the People Voted in the State is not how the Electoral College vote was cast. With digital Voting, Early Voting and the ability to rapidly count votes, we need to do away with the Electoral College and go back to the Single Person/Single Vote method. The use of the Electoral College was fine when it would take days and days to tally the votes, and was a close approximation of how the voting truly went. Now, it is a worthless system that really doesn't match the true votes of the people.

On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election. A number of constitutional amendments have been proposed seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote.

[harrygunner]

I see a couple of problems of an even more fundamental nature.

One is the candidate selection process. An honest, local person pushing basic ethics, accountability and mild government will never be on the ballot. Instead we've had to chose the least painful candidate, people we would never want on any ballot.

Too many things are happening behind the scenes, out of our control before we get to vote.

The second is the job itself has become impossible for anyone to be effective at. There are too many factions and layers of liaisons added to what once was a simpler process. Effecting change is nearly impossible.

Perhaps, reinstating one simple concept might be a start. The three branches of government should be at arms length and in contention. If done properly, it creates a stabilizing effect. But, today, the executive branch has far too much influence over the other two branches. That influence includes deal making with legislators and ignoring gross violations of law in all branches.

[Geeman]

I look at the rise of the so called "tea party" and the massive recoiling from those in the established political parties.  They sent the IRS, OSHA, ATF and other agencies to squash the dawn before it could reach its potential.  Still, many establishment republicans fell in the primary elections.  We need more of that, and it is only happening on the conservative side.

I'm NOT a Republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative wanting small central government.  I want Harry Reid to loose his job, but have little expectation that a replacement from the other side of the isle would make me much happier. 

Greg

[Wolfie]

I voted for Perot in 1992 due to the Savings and Loan Scandal.

These things happen, Nader got Bush in and Bush did get less votes than Gore. (I voted for Bush twice)

As for the Electoral College, it will never go away. Since 1992, Democrats have 246 of 270 locked in Electoral College Votes with 6 paths to victory, while a GOP candidate needs to catch a Royal Flush.  Ask Romney how that played out.

If you went to the popular vote, Democrats would make out better, they have won 5-6 popular votes since 1992 and would concentrate in Democrat states and the GOP would not even have a chance.

Also we are a Democratic Republic, we used to be strictly a Republic until direct vote for senator. The only thing that keeps us from being a pure Democracy is the Electoral College.