If the election was held today...

  • Thread starter Event
  • 192 comments
  • 4,312 views

Wou should be the next President?

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 17 35.4%
  • John Kerry

    Votes: 27 56.3%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 4 8.3%

  • Total voters
    48
What? You have to register your political affiliation to be able to vote?

In the UK, the country is divided up into 650 electoral regions (called constituencies). Each constituency has it's own candidates for at least the three major political parties (Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour) but usually at least three or four others (British National Party, The Green Party, UK Independence Party, Monster Raving Loony Party) as well as anyone who's got £500 to waste to stand for election (called "Independents"). Each constituency's voters vote, the votes are counted and the winner in that constituency becomes an MP. Whichever party returns the most MPs wins - and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.

This would solve the US's problem of "four states can pretty much take the election" - each county could return someone to speak for their interests to your lower tier of parliament, and whoever heads up that party is your PM (France also has an elected President above their PM). However, we have no direct say over who our Prime Minister is - they are simply the leader of the party with most MPs. The leader of each party is picked, and voted for, by the members of that party. Generally though, if we don't like the PM, we don't vote for his/her party.
 
Well actually you have to register, period to vote. you put down your affiliation so that when voteing in a primary election you will be shown to the right booth or given the proper ballot. In a primary you can only vote for the candidate of the party entered on your registration. In a general election you can vote for Donald duck if you so choose or anyone else you care to cast your vote for.
 
At the risk of making some upset, I think the parlementary system would be great over here. With the kind of candidates we've had running for President, I'm not sure how it could get worse. We could elect a "President" as head of state and the leader of the winning party, chosen from the gouse of reprsentatives, would be PM, the actual head of government. If we got really pissed at the government, as some are now, we could have a vote of confidence in the house and the PM would call a new election.

If true democracy dies in the US, the two major parties will have killed it.
 
Frenchie4256
At the risk of making some upset, I think the parlementary system would be great over here. With the kind of candidates we've had running for President, I'm not sure how it could get worse. We could elect a "President" as head of state and the leader of the winning party, chosen from the gouse of reprsentatives, would be PM, the actual head of government. If we got really pissed at the government, as some are now, we could have a vote of confidence in the house and the PM would call a new election.

If true democracy dies in the US, the two major parties will have killed it.

I agree. The two party system will be the downfall of America(if we have a downfall). The lesser of two evils is all we have to choose between. And have democrats forgotten that running for president is any natural born citizens right? Are these people really suing to have Naders rights revoked? What has this nation come to???????????? Thank God for the second amendment. Which i exercise as often as affordable ;)
 
Actually its evolved into a two party sysem because of the amazing costs involved to run for a national office. Both partys have absorbed other partys and made there views part of there platforms. In a country the size and as diverse as the US a parlimentry system would be chaotic ( IMO) all it would take is a small minority of idiots to stall any and all legislation and throw a wrench into any real foriegn policy. if people would support financialy a third or even fourth party there would be one. The constitution does'nt limit the amount of partys the people do ! anyway to change to a parlimentry sysem would take a constitutional amendment. Whats the chance of that ever happening if we won't even support a third party ? As it stands now when the candidates run in the primarys you have a very diverse choice in both partys, the loosers are welcome to run as independents ( remember when George Wallace was a Democrat ) as in Ross Perots case and other losers from the past.
 
87chevy
I proudly voted for, and will vote for............. NADER!!!!!!!! Ha, that's right, i said it and let me tell you why:

I will vote for Nader because he won't get elected. And, when Bush or Kerry takes office, and starts ****ing our nation up, i will have the right to complain about it becuase i didn't put either one into office. I can't stand America's current political system. You only have two choices> Democrat or Republican. The lesser of two evils. Ok, Bush is screwing up. But Kerry will just screw up in other ways. I also think, that if you are over 18, not a felon, and don't vote, you have no place to complain about who's in office.
Hey, don't call it "America's System". Us, Minnesotans, got Jessie Ventura as our gov., and he was under the 3rd party ballot. And guess what, he messed up too. There goes your theory.....


Anywho, had I been 18 around Primary time, I would've voted for Dean. He seems to be the only politician lately that has the balls to say anything. And then the Media killed his campaign. Don't make me start a rant about the Media.... Here's an honest question: When has the media ever done something CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of feeding like fungi on anything and everything that is negative? All you hear about are stories about how so-and-so was gunned down, so-and-so's house burned down because their kids were lighting fireworks in front of their suburban house because they were stupid, so-and-so yelled at one of his rallies because nobody could hear him except for the shielded microphone (Oh! But we'll leave the "nobody could hear him" part out of it....)

all it would take is a small minority of idiots to stall any and all legislation and throw a wrench into any real foriegn policy

Um, Bush and Cheny did that single-handedly...
 
The president can't stall legislation he can only Veto it and can be overridden by congress .The vice president is as usefull as tits on a bull when it comes to legislation he can be a tie breaker in the senate. remember Adolph Hitler ? He was elected legaly in a parlimentry system. no mater how you figure it there's no way he gets elected in the US system..unless of course he has a good media advisor and lots of money.
 
The system the US presently has was made the way it was made for a reason and that was because it keeps one branch of government from becoming too powerful. These checks and balances between the branches prevent any single person from becoming too powerful. Even if some kind of legislation is passed, our system allows it to later be fixed, either by a new bill that would override the previous one or the Courts can declare it unconstitutional. Things work well the way they are now. Though if you do not agree with how they are, the system is set up so there are ways you can get and try to get legislation written that will change things. Special interest groups in Washingtion, D.C. are given a whole lot of respect from government officials. Why? Well when they can organize and mobilize voters to write their congressmen, executive officials, etc., people usually listen. These voters are who elect these officials and without these voters, the officials do not get reelected. Here in the state of Oklahoma, people can petition to bring a bill to a vote of the people. So say a bill has passed all the steps it needs to be put in effect, we the people here can petition to have the bill brought to the people for a vote. Then if it passes, it goes into effect, or if it fails to be passed, then it is just as if the governor vetoed it or it never got out of committee. In fact, the writers of our constitution in Oklahoma went out of their way to make sure the people in the state have a say in just about every possible issue. An example of this is where we have to vote just to allow money to be released to the schools of the state, even though it has already been allocated to them.

Personally, I believe in my life time, we will see the decline of the Republican and Democrat parties and see the third parties come to some power. All it is going to take is voters coming together and supporting the third parties. The Libertarian party is slowly growing to have more people's support.

People really need to stop complaining about our republic system here in the US. It is not the system that is the problem, it is the people currently in it. So saying that, the people of the nation need to get out, vote, and vote for a different person to be in office. I personally am going to try my hardest to get as many Libertarians elected to office as possible.

Famine
What? You have to register your political affiliation to be able to vote?

In the UK, the country is divided up into 650 electoral regions (called constituencies). Each constituency has it's own candidates for at least the three major political parties (Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour) but usually at least three or four others (British National Party, The Green Party, UK Independence Party, Monster Raving Loony Party) as well as anyone who's got £500 to waste to stand for election (called "Independents"). Each constituency's voters vote, the votes are counted and the winner in that constituency becomes an MP. Whichever party returns the most MPs wins - and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.

This would solve the US's problem of "four states can pretty much take the election" - each county could return someone to speak for their interests to your lower tier of parliament, and whoever heads up that party is your PM (France also has an elected President above their PM). However, we have no direct say over who our Prime Minister is - they are simply the leader of the party with most MPs. The leader of each party is picked, and voted for, by the members of that party. Generally though, if we don't like the PM, we don't vote for his/her party.

Actually Famine, all you have to do to vote is register. You can register for whatever party you wish to. Though if you do not wish to be affiliated with a party, you can register as an Independent, which is the same as saying No Party.

Actually with the way the system is set up to elect President, through the electoral college, it keeps just four states from deciding who is elected President. To become President, the candidate has to obtain 270--I am pretty sure this number is right, though I am not completely positive--electoral votes. As you can see in the last presidential election, four states did not decide the election. In fact, the election was extremely close, and basically came down to whoever won Florida; this just means the race between the two parties is very, very close. And as you can see, the two big parties are starting to lose a whole lot of power. This is why I think we will see the third parties gain power, especially as they get out and talk about their party.

Now, I will tell you about how our congressmen are elected. Each state has a certain number of representatives, along with two senators. The number of representatives is based on the states population; the number of people per representative is about 625,000 people I think. But the House of Representatives is limited to a total of 435 members. So as the population of a state changes, the number of representatives can also change. The state of Oklahoma actually saw the loss of a representative in 2000 after the census. The only time the number of representatives will change is after a census, which occur every ten years. Now to determine what areas of a state a representative will be the representative for, the state's legislature will draw up districts. So the district lines are drawn to give the representative a population of around the number I mentioned previously. So the resulting districts can look rather odd--i.e. see North Caroling, they have very odd lines drawn, or at least used to. The people in each district can only vote for the candidates in their district, which is pretty obvious. Now to talk about Senators. Each state has two Senators, no matter how many people are in the state. This was done to give each state a fair say in the legislative branch; while the House was done for population, so that larger states would be able to be better able to reflect the whole states' people. The voting base for Senators is the entire state; there are no districts for them. And this right here is only on the federal level of government. Each state also has a legislature. I would say every state has two house, House of Representatives and Senate, but every state does not. Some of them just have one large house and the only state that comes to mind right now is Nebraska. But each state has district lines drawn up for the House of Representatives for the state and actually right now I still do not know how they apportion senators. I really have not gotten around to looking that information up. Now we can also talk about the local level. The local level also has elected officials. By local level, I mean city, town, village, etc.

The biggest difference between our system here and just about every other system out there is that we have many, many more people we elect to office.

The biggest problem I have with a parliamentary system is that the largest political party is always going to have all the power. They automatically get to have the prime minister as a member of their party. If the party is big enough, then that party is always going to write and pass legislation that reflects their views, with no consideration of the other parties. Here in the United States, with the way the system is, it allows the minority to still keep a say in legislation, without one party having too much say in legislation.

I can understand why though you have a problem understand our system here in the US. It does seem to be rather complicated, but it was designed that way for a reason. Bur really, the system is also rather simple, since the possiblities with it are basically endless. It is always open to new issues and always open to changes to make it work better.

The Founders of the United States designed a brilliant system. It works very well here. Like I said before the system works, it is just we do not always have the best people working in the system. The problem here is, it is our fault, the people that is, that cause this problem with the wrong people in office. We have all the power to change this. But with the design of our system, it keeps these wrong people from gaining too much power and that is why it works. As everyone can tell, I believe very much in our system, though I do not always believe in the people running it. That is why I will constantly strive to make sure I vote for the best person to run my government.
 
Just thought I'd add alittle to the above fine post. Try to remember that the US developed our system to conteract all the flaws of the parlimentry systems . It was designed to be better and to adapt as situations changed. We have a true representative government from the local to the state and federal levels. our presidents are controlled to large affect by congress. One of the reasons that when I see post calling Bush a dictator or Bush did this and Bush was responsible for that...Its laughable and shows a great lack of understanding as to how our government works. The pesidents policys would be worthless without the support of congress and hence the peoples.
 
ledhed
Just thought I'd add alittle to the above fine post. Try to remember that the US developed our system to conteract all the flaws of the parlimentry systems . It was designed to be better and to adapt as situations changed. We have a true representative government from the local to the state and federal levels. our presidents are controlled to large affect by congress. One of the reasons that when I see post calling Bush a dictator or Bush did this and Bush was responsible for that...Its laughable and shows a great lack of understanding as to how our government works. The pesidents policys would be worthless without the support of congress and hence the peoples.

Thanks for adding to my post! 👍 Though I would like to further elaborate. Congress truly is the strongest branch in our government, though all the branches are still yet very balanced. But the Founders gave Congress a slight bit more power because they are better able to reflect the people's opinion, since they directly represent the citizens, are the only branch able to allocate money to causes, and the only branch able to make legislation. But while they have their slight--and I mean slight advantage--in power, they are still checked by the executive and judicial branch in various ways. It is because of these checks that keep things from getting out of control and thus the brilliance of the design.
 
I voted for Dick Gregory once. "No More Lies." 1972 I think it was. I'll vote for Kerry this time around, not because he's anything special, but Bush is just a chronic disaster.
 
Very simple. I will be voting for Bush because he is only doing exactly what he said he would do after 911. I'd rather go into one of the biggest battles with someone who means what they say. John Kerry will fold and bow at the altar of the UN or his birkenstock anti-war protesting base. George Bush is the right man for the right time in history. I will be damned if Im gonna hand the keys to the Kerry's, Al Gore's, Michael Moore, Hollywood and every soft bellied leftist who see Bush as more of a threat than radical Islam or Hussein.
 
Muscles
Very simple. I will be voting for Bush because he is only doing exactly what he said he would do after 911.

Dude, Bush is a FAKE, see the signs! He's calling this whole thing a "war on terror." That's all fine and dandy. How much have we heard about his "original" target, Osama? Nada, zip, nothing in over a month. How much has he talked about how the US had terrrorists in it and did nothing? Ditto. According to his original speech, saying that states that house terrorists are terrorists too, does that mean that the US was a terrorist state at one time? Apparently, but what did he do? He suspends the Geniva convention, holds THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people in Cuba, not letting them have lawyers, not ever intending on giving them a trial. How is he being different from Sadam, other than the fact that he's acting just shy enough to not kill those people he's detaining and from killing their families? He's disrupted their lives, their families' lives, and their families. He's fighting Communism again by not letting Cuban immigrants seeing their families other than ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS! How is that protecting our country? One would only think that his measures would only incite revolt from the grassroots from within the country. I'm still waiting for some sort of revolt, and frankly I'm surprised that nobody's done anything yet. No major protests (Other than invading Iraq, that is). I think somebody needs to slap Bush a few times, then throw him out of office like a farmer would throw a bail of hay.... Now THAT'S when we'd see those flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz!
 
rjensen11
Dude, Bush is a FAKE, see the signs! He's calling this whole thing a "war on terror." That's all fine and dandy. How much have we heard about his "original" target, Osama? Nada, zip, nothing in over a month.
There are many US special forces looking for him right now on the Afghanistan border. The media just doesn't cover it. And since they are black operations, there isn't much to cover.

rjensen11
He suspends the Geniva convention, holds THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people in Cuba, not letting them have lawyers, not ever intending on giving them a trial.
rjensen11, have you read the news lately, or do you just read your Liberal propaganda? The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists and those terrorists are now allowed to have lawyers. There are 600 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

rjensen11
He's fighting Communism again by not letting Cuban immigrants seeing their families other than ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS! How is that protecting our country?
What the hell are you talking about?

rjensen11
I'm still waiting for some sort of revolt, and frankly I'm surprised that nobody's done anything yet. No major protests (Other than invading Iraq, that is).
Not everyone is an insane Liberal like you. The majority of people can have proper discussions and debates. If they want to get their message across, they can vote in November.
 
Viper Zero
There are many US special forces looking for him right now on the Afghanistan border. The media just doesn't cover it. And since they are black operations, there isn't much to cover.


rjensen11, have you read the news lately, or do you just read your Liberal propaganda? The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists and those terrorists are now allowed to have lawyers. There are 600 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.


What the hell are you talking about?


Not everyone is an insane Liberal like you. The majority of people can have proper discussions and debates. If they want to get their message across, they can vote in November.
There's just as much happening in Afganistan as there is in Iraq. People just don't know what's happening there because the media only cares about Iraq and Israel right now. There's still news to be discussed about their new constitution, updates as to how functional the country is now, etc.

Okay, so I adming I exagerated with the figures for Guantanimo, but my point still stands that many of the people there are innocents who are held there without any means of contacting their families and who have no end in sight for how long they'll have to stay in the prisons.

Further restrictions on US embargo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3849419.stm

On 30 June, the embargo is tightened further. The Bush administration has ruled that Cuban-Americans can only go home once every three years instead of every year.

When they get there, they will only be allowed to spend $50 a day, down from $167.

They will also need a special licence stipulating that they can only visit immediate members of their family

Dude, if you think I'm an insane liberal, you must be pretty ignorant....
 
What makes you belive they are innocent ? do you know something no one else does ? BTW did you pay any attention to the new supreme court ruling ?
 
Just out of curiousity, it just so happens I did not catch the ruling. Could you please inform me of what the Supreme Court ruled?
 
That the detained cannot be held indefinitely and that they must have access to US courts.
 
I'm excitied since this will be the first presidential election I can vote in, and wow its a tough call. I do not like Kerry at all, just because he flip flops on everything, I don't think I could take it if another Democrat was in office.

I don't care for Bush all that much, although I respect that he does what he says he's going to do.

I think I wil be voting Bush though, I am a Republican and I might as well support my canidate. Also I have to vote for someone, because not voting is just a sin against American freedom.
 
This thread is completely absurd.

Event Horizon
If Bush is elected again, he won't have to worry about another election and he will run this country into the crapper.

And concede the 2008 election to the Democrats? Yeah, real likely. :rolleyes:

87chevy
I can't stand America's current political system. You only have two choices> Democrat or Republican.

This is what all the wannabe intelligent people say now - "nobody represents me" "you can only vote for TWO parties" "my voice isn't heard." If your voice isn't being heard, then RUN YOURSELF. Otherwise, choose the closest-aligned with your own views and GET ON WITH IT. John McCain did it...

Sage
Because the primaries are voted on by people who are dedicated Democrats/Republicans, you tend to get the more "radical" (I use that term loosely) candidates, instead of the more moderate ones.

In my experience, parties see the point of a primary as to nominate the most electable person. In this case, it was the one who had the most chance to beat Bush - hence Kerry NOT DEAN.

neon_duke
Michael Badnarik.

YES!!! I support you and whatever loser the Libertarians or the Greens or whatever chooses to nominate - it's just one more vote that won't cancel out mine when I'm off voting for somebody with a chance.

Viper Zero
I scares the **** out of me that John Kerry has yet to lay out a foreign policy. What is he waiting on? Is he waiting for another 767 go flying through a skyscraper?

It scare the **** out of me that George Bush has yet to pull out of Israel. What is he waiting on? Is he waiting for another 767 to go flying into a skyscraper?

It scares the **** out of me that George Bush had no exit strategy for Iraq. What was he thinking? Was he thinking that we would be able to liberate the people without conflict?

It scares the **** out of me that George Bush hasn't yet captured Osama. What is he trying to do? Is he trying to let the world's most dangerous man roam free?

Jordan
Putting that weak, isolationist Kerry in office would give it just enough time for more trouble to brew around the world, so that another Republican would be left to clean up his mess and take the blame for his problems.

What trouble? What problems? Haven't we got problems enough right now? More troops have died since this war ended than when we were fighting in it. And why's Kerry weak? Or a flip-flopper, as someone else said. Because the media tells you he is? I've got to tell you, I've been paying attention to the man and I don't see it with nearly the frequency as Fox News would have you believe.

danoff
Libertarians stand for social freedom and fiscal freedom.

Of course! Your party - which has less support than Pinoche - just happens to stand for maximum freedom in all cases! Why, sure! Gotta hand it to you danoff - you're the one person at GTP who's managed to be more arrogant than Viper Zero.

Viper Zero
There are many US special forces looking for him right now on the Afghanistan border. The media just doesn't cover it. And since they are black operations, there isn't much to cover.

Yeah - and you can tell the Black Ops that they're doing a greeeaaat job. 👍 :rolleyes:

The only thing you're right about in that entire statement are the last five words.

Viper Zero
Not everyone is an insane Liberal like you. The majority of people can have proper discussions and debates.

Oh sorry danoff - Viper Zero's back on top in the arrogant department.

Viper Zero, you aren't wise beyond your years, despite what you might think. Bowl for all the truth you want, but in the end, Michael Moore's just a fat guy making movies. It's not the liberals, but the radical conservatives like you that are giving him all the money and fame he wants. When you (and by you I mean conservatives - though most conservatives have "seen" Michael Moore's movies by having Rush Limbaugh tell them about it) go see his movie and look for inaccuracies and laugh at his theories, you don't seem to realise that at the end of the day, he made money off you. He's the one laughing when he cashes the checks. ;)
 
Why didn't you quote one of my gross absurdities? I even stated I wouldn't vote for Bush or Kerry. That makes me insane.

I dislike Bush and Kerry, but if I HAD to vote for one, I'd choose not to vote. Luckily, the voting system we have in the US allows me to vote for someone with no chance. And that's what I'll do. Or not vote at all. I haven't decided what my riteous ass is going to do come November. But I'm sure whatever decision I make, it will be based solely on arbitrary feelings I have at the moment. And that's what makes the difference in the end.

But hopefully I won't be in Boston when we have tens of thousands of Socialists at the Democratic National Convention. That's going to suck big time.

Douglyn: Is it danoff's liking of Libertarian party that makes him arrogant? It's the only party that makes any sense, so if that makes him arrogant, I'm arrogant as well.
 
Oh no, I pissed off a Liberal! I'm so scared.

I'm glad I made top honors on M5's arrogant list. Do I get a prize?
 
Yes! You have just won a chocolate chip cookie! If you do not like chocolate chip, well then you are just SOL because that is all we have to give away and all we would give to you anyways. :lol:
 
M5Power
Of course! Your party - which has less support than Pinoche - just happens to stand for maximum freedom in all cases! Why, sure! Gotta hand it to you danoff - you're the one person at GTP who's managed to be more arrogant than Viper Zero.
The very definition of what a Liberatarian is makes them stand for maximum freedom! Look at the Libertarian party's home page – at the very top, it says, "The Libertarian Party is committed to... individual liberty and personal responsibility, a free-market economy..." That's exactly what danoff said! Now, you may debate whether those are good things to strive for, and that's fine, but don't call danoff for saying what he did, because that is exactly the mission of the Libertarian party.
 
Well this thread is absurd so I guess we should all go over MP5's house and hang out while we wait for the prizes.
 
Back