Just curious.

None of the above.

Given the options you provided....then yes, the system is quite broken. You make it painfully obvious.

I think the poll question is broken.



[insert emoticon that indicates this isn't a serious problem]

Other than that, I think everything is broken.

.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And maybe explain your 'none of the aboves'? Should I change the poll?

I think that the US system should be Parliamentary instead of Presidential. The legislature should continue to be bicameral (+ federalism, clearly). The legislature that represents the states (the senate) should have to approve legislation by majority, but should not be able to propose legislation. The people's legislature (the House) should be decided proportionally: Voters should choose the party that they want in power, and seats should be divided among those parties based on percentage of the vote they won. This would allow a more than two parties to have a chance of getting in the parliament. It hopefully would also cause a coalition government most of the time.

.

The problem isn't the system. Career politicians, or rather those who have never had a significant career outside of politics, are what make it appear broken.

It works.

Two-party system is not a democracy, though. Or maybe...
... you people are just so dumb that you can only choose from two choices.

Oh bait.

i actually kind of agree with wookie on this one... i dont think its the system that is particularly the problem. i really think it is more due to career politicians. if your career, your entire livelihood is dependent upon your getting elected and staying in office, then you are much more likely to propose and vote for legislation that is going to pay for your re-election campaign, rather than what is actually best for the people.

Personally, I think it's the politicians themselves that are the problem not the system.

I agree with the above two posts and...

...and Wookie!

Yup.

Ideally the system would be set up in such a way that the corrupt politicians or those with priorities other than the good of the people would not be able to remain elected. So it seems pointless complaining about bad politicians when the system allows them to stay there.

I'm with Recusant on this one.





I find it humorous that people with these ideas would be labeled as terrorists in these times.

what does democrat or rep have to do with it being broken or not.


A simple yes or no would have been just fine.

Less terrorists and more teenage high school anarchists. Or do you honestly believe that a complete overhaul of the government every two decades produces anything good, practical, or useful? Furthermore, the idea of a government being held hostage by its people will produce only elected officials who will then take measures to ensure that the people will not kill them. Thus, good-bye democratic republic, hello fascist regime.

But, sure. I guess if social, economic, and governmental instability is your thing, we could always follow the African model of government. It's worked out pretty well for them - I mean, there's at least some people still alive.

Jefferson isn't talking about full blown civil war. He's talking about mob uprisings every once in awhile to remind the government who they work for.

If I could find a way to inspire regular mob uprisings that didn't involve bloodshed, I'd be all for it. Probably be less effective without the blood, though.

Question: What isn't broken?

America's political system?

You mean protests?

Which are usually ignored, hence the issue I have with creating a mob uprising with no blood. Taking the blood out kind of neuters it.

I don't see anything within those quotes that call for anarchy. I don't really know what you're getting at here.

Why do you assume that there would be a complete overhaul? I absolutely believe that a good old fashioned rebellion every few decades could be good, practical & useful. We wouldn't be America if our forefathers didn't think like this. Could you imagine France without their revolution(s)? The people in this country have been convinced that their vote actually counts. Ha! Who is there to vote for? Certainly no one that will bring about real change. While politicians are sitting around in their fancy outfits, debating meaningless issues & screwing interns, real people are suffering.

Too late. This government has done a superb job of ensuring that the people are disarmed to the point where any real rebellion is virtually impossible. We have politicians & people in the media calling college professors terrorists over a difference in ideology.

Is America a fascist regime? Is France a fascist regime? Do you have any idea how many countries that have had rebellions &/or revolutions that didn't become fascist regimes? Unlike many of the countries your speaking of, we've had a taste of democracy. We've tasted semi-freedom. I think your making a huge logical leap here. Besides, it appears that Bush was doing a good job of this already.

Protests are a joke. Very few do anything. How long were we in Vietnam while the protesters took to the streets? Nope. We need to kick it old school like the French & early Americans did it.

I can't recall any recent revolution via violent arms that resulted in establishing a better form of government. If we took Africa for example, pretty much every time a cruel, oppressive government is ousted, an even crueler, more oppressive government is produced. But with more guns. People are addicted to power, a rebellion is an easy surge of powerto the people who lead them.

This isn't Africa. I don't think anyone here is calling for a revolution...just for people to do more than vote & hand out protest signs.

So, who is going to volunteer to be a politician if it means sacrificing 2-6 years of their livelihood? Elites.

No matter what, elites are the ones contesting for power in a democracy. It's better to develop institutional checks on the elite than to try to pretend that we can fix that.

So, you want us to fight and kill people working for "The Government" and publicly execute our leaders, but you don't want us have a revolution?

Also, the French Revolution worked for about five minutes before Napoleon took over and shortly thereafter reinstituted the monarchy, with him as the head. It's a poor example...

You're proposing that, every 20 years, we have a rebellion to oust the current political leaders and supplant them with new ones. Do you honestly believe that people will be willing to leave office if it's at the business end of a weapon?



France was formed after several bloody revolutions that killed hundreds of thousands. The United States had one war to secede from the British Empire, and then we took the lessons learned during France's and Britain's development.

If I have to worry about being the undeserved target of a rebellious mob, I'm going to vote for the candidate who says he/she will keep me protected from the mob. What will this person do? Squash protests with military force. Control the news. Do everything in their power to prevent a rebellious force from tearing down the government "for the safety of the people".

Our current system ensures that there will be a limit to how long someone will occupy an office. If you can think of a way to refresh the government without putting innocents in danger, post it.



You realize that the clause of freedom of speech involves opinions other than what you believe, right? There are people who say things like what you cited, yes, but there are also people who say that those original people are wrong. What would you rather be the case?



I don't think you quite understand what came out of the French revolutions. It took a few rounds for them to finally figure out a workable system of government. The only reason we've only had the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is because we took our lessons from Europe.

The founders of our country first used diplomatic measures to try and negotiate our terms. We moved to war because there was no representation of the colonies within the British government. Within the existing U.S. Congress, we have elected Senate and House of Representatives. You may not like necessarily who represents you, but welcome to one of the flaws of democracy: if you're in the minority, you're going to be hard-pressed to find adequate representation.



Daily guillotine executions in public squares? Harassment and assault of people who simply believe in the current system of government? Imprisonment of political dissidents? You honestly believe this is a better situation than what currently exists?

It all revolves around one thing.


Money.



I doubt theres any politician who believes in the "good of america" anymore. Not like the dead guys on our money did. Wealth meant little to them, it was more about establishing our country. I think since all the hard work is done, politicians just stopped giving a ****.

What's the alternative?

The right thing.

Care to be a bit more practical?

If you're a politician, then you are there to represent The People and to make sure what they want done is done. As others have posted, career politicians largely don't give a **** about The People, they care about their campaign.

That means they're not even doing their jobs.

They hope that whatever bull****ting they can do during election season can make the ignorant masses forget about the bull**** in their past, thus ensuring they can continue their (lack of) action for another X years.

In just the past few months I've seen the presidential race go from "not Hilary, not McCain" to "meh" to "*********, Obama's VP is everything I hate", thus returning the system to the usual "giant douche or turd sandwich" choices.

Would you support a limit on the number of terms a senator/house person could be in office?

I'm Jepman, and I think YOU'RE broken.

That seems to be a rather arbitrary solution. I mean, I can understand it would help air out the government body, but I can also see how it would cause stability issues (i.e. nothing significant would get done because plans would change every 4 years.)

No. That would be Mr. Jefferson. I simply stated that it could be a good thing. There are a multitude of variables that would decide whether or not it would be good or bad. Take for instance the possibility of a rebellion being led by Evangelicals. I'd probably be put to the flame.



I don't see why not. It has happened many times throughout history in various countries.



This is exactly what we see in America today.



Much damage can be done in the term of 4-8 years (e.g. Bush). Not to say that things couldn't have been much worse. You could potentially ruin millions of lives in this amount of time. I'm not so sure that there is a way to keep "innocents" out of danger.



Sure, there are various interpretations of many of our laws. However, this is even more of a reason for people to rebel. Maybe it's about time for a new Constitution.



I don't disagree with you here at all. However, if things need to be done, how many rounds it takes to do so, in my opinion, is insignificant. The longer the people put things off, the harder it will be to accomplish real change. We're pretty much at that point now.



I never called for any of that. We're not barbarians. Not to pretend that the possibility of a certain amount of barbarism wouldn't present itself. I've never stated that we're at a point where we should have a revolution. Things must get much worse before such a thing would happen. I don't think such a thing would even happen in our lifetime. However, I honestly do believe that it's time for widespread civil disobedience at least. It's time that Americans wake up & realize that going to the polls just isn't enough. The next guy really doesn't differ too much from the last guy.

Widespread civil disobedience of what? Bombings?

We're going to have a smoke-in.

two 4 year terms in local gov. two 4 year terms in state gov. two 4 year terms in federal gov. and then your out. period. yes that is still a total of 24 years possible, you wont have the politicians finagling and spending 16-20 years festering in a single level of government.