Debate Is the US goverment that bad

And apperently they did so. Just look at all the places that had the most animosity against bush.
New York for example... I live there and all I heard is john kerry this and john kerry that. And they picked him in the end.

 

Well clearly not everyone was unhappy with Bush.

 

I know....I mean thats why he is the president right? LOL

 

Those who didn't like Bush did go out and vote. It's just that those who do like him think that those who don't are annoying and obnoxious (and possibly correct?), and thus it looks like there are more than there really are.

And he was talking about the election results in Iraq, I believe, in which case, we failed that mission, because part of the biggest thing we were trying to do was get people to actually go out and vote. They did more there than they ever have here to alleviate voter apathy.

 

To Vicious,
I lived in New York until november...After the election, and in Sullivan County where I lived, There was no turn out what so ever...In the town I lived in, Only 470 people went out and voted....Sad,no?
To Baphijmm,
I know, I know....Hell, half the people who went out to vote were blown up, or shot...I can't blame Bush only....Besides, the more I see bush, and hear him speak, the more I believe he Is just a puppet for Chaney....Naive, me? Never....=)

 

Personally I wasnt much of a Bush fan but it seemed like there were not other viable good choices. I loath Kerry and since theres really only two parties in this country (which is crap by the way) I really had no choice. I ended up not voting on purpose, not because I was lazy but because I couldnt support either one.

Bah boo American politics.

 

actually it was only 7%

 

You see what I mean? Yes, there are other choices. (Ie. Nader) But only &% or 11% actually voted for him. I'm willing to bet that a number of the people who voted for Bush/Kerry/didn't vote, would have voted for Nader, but didn't because they were sure that it would make no difference whatsoever.

Remember that episode of the Simpsons, where Kang and Kodos replaced Bill Clinton and Bob Dole? Toward the end, someone (can't remember who) said "Well maybe I'll just vote for a third-party candidate!" Kang responded "Go ahead. Throw your vote away."

From what I've seen, that actually appears to be true. Voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away.

What's that? It isn't? Well, name one time in american history where the President wasn't Democratic or Republican. (I can't think of any) And, even if you can, it's still only one, out of, like, 30-some presidents. Yeah. It's a waste.

 

Who knows...maybe sometime in our lives there will be two pathetic choices that will drive everyone to go for the third party candidate. But I guess we will have to wait...

 

There are two that come immediately to mind: William Henry Harrison (Whig Party) and Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive, or "Bull-Moose" Party). As you said, though, that's only 2 out of about 45 by this point, and, well, yeah, that's not much.

EDIT: After actually looking it up, there were several from the Whig party -

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Whig_Party

 

And none of those were in the last 150 yers, even. (Besides, wasn't the Whig party, like, very similar to the conservatives? I'm a bit rusty on american politics)

 

Teddy was within the past century, but the rest were not, correct. The Whig Party was actually fairly liberal by today's standards, and were a third party at the time of their existance; they were founded because they opposed Andrew Jackson's "tyrannical" form of presidency. Tyler, for example, was kicked out of the party during his presidency due to his views. The group was dissolved when conflicts began arising around the Civil War, where members were split between North and South.

 

George Washington. He even warned again st the formation of political parties.

Oh, and Rebublican and Democtrat weren't the original parties.


P.S. - In my opinion you should always vote for the canditate whom you support, despite party.

P.P.S. - If your Candidate doesn't win in your state your vote doesn't count anyways due to the electoral college.

 

So what purpose is it?

I believe George Washington originally said that only a few people should be able to vote, because most people couldn't be trusted to vote intelligently. And, over time, it evolved into the Electoral Colleges.

And that's part of the reason the US government is bad. The whole electoral college system is useless garbage. It needs to go.

 

It isn't a matter of whether or not people can vote intelligentaly nowadays that keeps the Electoral College in effect. The original college was set up for that reason yes but there is and was another reason that is still very much in effect nowadays. When the country was being pieced together, (i.e. the different colonies agreeing to become a single nation or entity) the smaller less populated colonies didn't want their opinions and policies to be completely dictated by a larger more populated state. The Electoral college was put into play in order to give every state/colony in the Union a more equal voice as to who would run the Union as a whole and how the Gov't would be run. It was for those same reasons that despite the size of a state every state gets to have 2 representatives in the senate but then in order to recognize the states that do have more in population, they can have more people in the House of Representatives.

In a more understanding aspect. Every state has a form of its own government right? Now does anyone think it would be fair to other state Governments if the opinion of 1 state government could overrule the opinions of 6 other state governments simply because it has more people living under it even if all 6 of those state governments share a unanimous agreement against that one states opinion. The founding fathers didn't think so.

Let me give you a really good example. If lets say California's government and New York's government suddenly said that they were going to make drunk driving legal in the US (this would never happen but bare with the example) and the United states did not have the electoral college and everything was decided based purely on popular vote. Those two states would be able to change the rules of the country even if 30 of the smaller states all unanimously disagreed with them. last time I checked the opinion of two states should never be able to overrule the opinion of over half the U.S. and that is one of the real important purposes of the electoral college and why it shouldn't be removed.

I believe our founding fathers for the most part must have set things up pretty good considering that the American constitution and its government have survived relativaly unchanged for longer than any other government system or constitution in the world abroad.

 

I think you're thinking of something else. How does the electoral college have anything to do with how laws are made?

No, I think the electoral college has nothing to do with how laws are made or changed, and only determines the winner of elections. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't think I am.

 

I may be slightly mixing it up with something else but one fact that remains is that when the colonies were first being put together into the Union it was one of the criteria that the constitution or some other piece of documentation had to fulfill. Relativaly equal representation of every state. Whether it be with laws using the format that Congress is in or whether it is in deciding who will be the next president and stuff with the electoral college.