I hate those campaigns to go vote. Fuck that bullshit. If you don't know enough about the issues to feel motivated to go vote, then don't water down the votes of the people who have educated themselves. Do the country a favor and stay home! We don't need you making desicions you don't understand! FFS. Can you imagine where we would be at if we had a 80% voter turn out at every election?

The average person is not smart enough or far seeing enough to govern themselves, hence the democratic republic. A true democracy would fail miserably.

Anyway, I will disent on what is wrong with the world. I agree that pragmatism would help a lot, but the overall system is fucked up (in the US anyway). The senators and congressmen that vote laws into place are familiar with only a handful of the laws they vote on (about 5%). Almost every action that takes place is about political manouvering. Example, republicans will create a bill that increases gun control (which democrats want) and decrease environmental spending (which democrats hate), just to get the democrats on record as being 'anti-environment' for the next election. They will then turn around and repeal all bills that passed that day, so it is as if it never happened. That kind of shit happens all the time. The system fosters it because of how it is set up. IMO, the problems we have are because of how government is set up. There should be no horse trades, no bundled unrelated laws in bills, the congress/senate should be required to understand in detail what they are voting for (they should employ staff to be well versed on every bill, and present them with all the important aspects), and the mechanisms of how voting take place should be completely scrapped (eg, the dominant party can [and do] keep a vote open indefinitely if they are not getting the results they want).

After doing two years of Ancient History and concentrating on the politics of Rome and Athens I learnt that the modern democracy is based upon the Roman system that Cicero praises, a combination of democracy (all citizens vote for magistrates), oligarchy (only one class could become magistrates) and monarchy (Consuls had absolute power). This is very different from radical democracy that the Athenians invented.

the problem with the political system (US) is its backwards.

Look at teachers for example. Teacher are some of the most important people in our society. They are also the lowest paid, meaning, those that teach, teach because they have a desire to. They want to be teacher regardless of the pay. Its their passion.

On the other hand, those in congress get paid big bucks. They get fat retirements and they dont even pay into social security. They set their own wages and we(the people) have no say.

So, you have money hungry people who claim to be (public servants).

To fix this problem, make being a congressmen the same pay as being a teacher and you will see a BIG change in politics. Instead youll have people who it is their passion to be public servants. That arnt interested in power.

In addition, you de-centralize government and make the postion more weaker.

Then we would see what kinda of people want to be congressmen. Im sure the scenery would be largly different.

money truely is the root of all evil.

That's why I hate MPs voting for their pay rise.

I think every congressional pay raise should be a public referendum. Have everyone turn out and vote on it. I bet most people will vote no. Teach those fat turds at the top who's in charge.

Very good point! All this PR bullshit in politics is really making people miss the whole point.



Yep, that is pretty backwards. I think the key is to pay politicians a normal salary, but a generous pension. The ideal democratic politician, has no extra-ordinary personal interests. I mean, look at Italy and how fucked up it is with that idiot Berlusconi.

Besides the issue of pay (in which everyone agrees politicians should be paid less to promote enthusiam), the issue of decentralisation becomes apparent. I agree with 11b's comments that decentralisation decreases power in politicians but also it allows people to participate in politics more and allows legislation to be fitted to the region.

The major negative of decentalisation is that it is harder to influence the development of the nation as a whole.

Maybe a balance can be found then

that's what the US was about....a strong, federal government to control the path of the nation as a whole, then state governments to control the path of the individual states, with local governments below that.

The only problem being is the federal government has become too powerful.

For those unfamiliar with US history, for a while we had another govenrment, too, which had a weak federal government and strong states. This didn't work at all, because the states would bicker over trade and whatnot.

Yea, like now, you have States that want or have legalized Gay Marriage. And other States that dont recoginze gay marriage.

So your only 2 options are, create a federal law or let the states decide.

Personaly, I more for State power. The people have more say in their governments, its more personalized, you feel like your vote counts. Plus if California wants to let gay people marry thats fine, they can, if Texas dont, thats fine they dont(for instance)

agreed. Though, at the same time, states have to respect each others' laws. IE, if a gay couple goes from bridge city to LA, gets married, then goes back to bridge city, Texas has to recognize them as being legally married. They can also file their taxes with the federal government as married.

Not that that's a problem, imo, but it complicates matters.

See thats where I disagree, why should another state honor another states laws?

Thats the whole point of State power. One state can do one thing while another can do it things. Whats the point of a state when you have to obey the laws of all the other ones?

If that where the case, then lets say California made it legal to rape girls under the age of 10. Then all states would have to ok that?

the alternative is worse, though.

What if it's legal to carry 1 ounce of marijuana in Texas, but in Oklahoma it's an offense punishable with 10 years in prison.

If a Texan wanders across the border by accident while hunting and gets caught, does he go to jail for 10 years? Is a Texas citizen subject to Oklahoma laws?

What if an Oklahoma couple goes across the border every day (by 5 feet) and sells weed to anyone that wants it? (let's pretend it's legal in texas and not oklahoma). Can Oklahoma punish the guy? What if he sells to oklahoma residents, but only in Texas?

What if raping children is legal in Cali? What if you get filmed raping children in Cali (it's legal), and the film gets distributed to Utah. You go to Utah to visit a friend...can they arrest you for child molestation? Production/distribution of child pornography?

Anyway....my whole point being that if laws aren't enforced equally among states, all kinds of stupid shit can happen.

Point taken that the federal government perhaps has become too powerful.

As for that point regarding the laws when you enter different states, i think its only a significant problem when the legislation differs a lot on the matter. So heres a half-way solution:

The already over-powerful federal government decides on the legislature for the whole nation. Each state MUST adopt it, but the extent to which may vary from state to state. So in other words the government says:

'ok, everyone, heres a new law, you can suit the sentence to your liking, but it must be between 5-10 years.'

This will allow say, California to have 5 years, and Texas 10. So ultimately what youre doing here is allowing for local representation while guiding the whole nation forward.