What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
111 Comments
- Crimeodial, on 11/16/2009, -3/+44The Republican party is on the verge of a big split. I wish the dems would do the same. A 4 party system would be a lot better. I'm a registered Dem, but I disagree with the party line on a lot of stuff, as I"m sure a lot of republicans disagree with their party too.. A split from both parties would be a big benefit for the country.
- rcook18, on 11/16/2009, -9/+27If fiscal conservatives (and I'm not talking about the haters and other bigots who call themselves conservatives) tried to take over the Republican Party, they would find that their corporate financing disappeared. They would have to finance their campaigns from garage sales. Corporations demand 1000% interest on their campaign contributions and no fiscal conservative would agree to let corporations steal a million dollars from public coffers for every thousand dollars they contributed to the conservative's campaign.
- curtisag, on 11/16/2009, -2/+19Impossible but it would be nice. Our system is skewed to create two major parties. And congressional districts are gerrymandered to produce a left or right outcome. Electing Presidents is equally flawed and biased. The Senate is somewhat of an abomination democratically speaking. Why should Vermont have the same influence as California? The only solution I can think of is requiring run-offs so the third parties have a shot and people don't feel like they're throwing their vote away.
- Elliuotatar, on 11/16/2009, -9/+23The Ombama ERA? Have these people no concept of time? The guy barely just took office.
- tastypaste, on 11/16/2009, -3/+17There is some hope. Both Ron Paul and Barack Obama proved that the internet can be used to bring in a lot of campaign donations. It's a viable option for candidates who aren't on the side of the corporate interests. The hard part is getting equal representation in the media. We all know Ron Paul was shut out by Fox News and barred from several debates by the GOP.
While I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of subjects, I still think it was a bad day for the Republican Party and America in general when the powers in charge were so terrified of a popular candidate that they actively attempted to shut him out of the elections. That's not democracy. - flip2trip, on 11/16/2009, -3/+12It's usually the people in the big cities that are wanting a one person one vote set-up for the president. BasalCell is correct, with a system like that NY, Chicago, LA, etc... would decide who would be president, the rest of the country be dammed.
- hfactor, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10And this is how it should be, because the cities are where the people live! One person = one vote means that the interests of the people are expressed unskewed and in proper proportion. If 80% of people live in cities, then for the country as a whole the interests of the cities have 80% weight. This is the very idea of democracy.
- norwegianlegion, on 11/16/2009, -5/+13Known troll, don't bury him, don't feed him.
- jivatmanx, on 11/16/2009, -1/+8"FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement."
Frum is one of the most arrogant, insufferable douche bags in the conservative movement mostly consisting of arrogant insufferable douchebags. This is the attention whore who wrote the article "unpatriotic conservatives" and went McCarthy on all of the anti-war conservatives, calling them anti-Semites, ect. - mkriss5681, on 11/16/2009, -3/+10The fact of the matter is, the economy will be better in 3 years. Obama will be able to push the black and youth vote (also the Hispanic vote as well they way the GOP has treated them) the same way he did in 2008. Not to mention a whole new group of young 18-22 year old voters who are now overwhelmingly voting Democratic.
I seriously doubt the GOP will have anyone who is a credible candidate to challenge him. All the Obama voters will be voting DEM all the way down the card. Expect the Dems to hold onto power at least in 2012. - Griminald, on 11/16/2009, -1/+8The basis of the article seems to assume that Obama can make the youths come out in 2010. He won't -- because Obama is not on the ticket. I think true Obama-lovers sometimes don't understand this. The voting numbers in 2009's elections aren't *deflated* -- it's the numbers from 2008 that were *inflated* compared to what they normally were.
Youths, unfortunately, don't vote. That's their biggest problem. They came out because they loved what Obama represented -- they will not simply come out again just because the man's President.
What will count most is how the country changes -- or doesn't -- between now and then. And generally the country doesn't change all that much in a year, so it all boils down to one thing: unemployment.
The higher the country's unemployment in November 2010, the more likely you are to see Democrats lose seats. That's about all there is to it. - acknotSW, on 11/16/2009, -3/+10If fiscal conservatives tried to take over the republican party, they would be met head on by the crazy floor flopping hand waving religious arm of the party. After 2008, I don't think the religious loons will support another moderate. I see this party splitting eventually.
- mkriss5681, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7The key word is "conservatives". Ask them if they consider themselves Republican and you'll get an entirely different answer.
- zeabu, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6The president should make it law that only contributions from individuals can be used for campaigns.
That can be optionally enlarged by a governmental fund given to any party that has made the 5% mark, the previous election (as in Europe). No corporate donation should be allowed, as that only raises lobbying impact. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6I'm not sure why people still care whether the Democrats or Republicans are at the wheel. The same crap still happens.
- funkedup, on 11/16/2009, -4/+10So we would have a liberal, populist, libertarian, and neocon party? Sounds good to me, then at least the issues would be better defined.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/16/2009, -4/+9I don't see why you think that's overly idealistic, nearly all other democracies in the world use the one person = one vote system.
- acknotSW, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5I agree zeabu, but the only people who can currently pass those laws are the same people getting rich and easily reelected thanks to the current system. They like it, they don't want it to change anymore than the people who are able to buy passage of legislation that they often write themselves.
- BasalCellBossk, on 11/16/2009, -5/+10Because the major population centers would decide the vote, & no candidate would campaign to, or serve the interests of, the low pop areas. Cities would elect the Prez.
- Crimeodial, on 11/16/2009, -3/+8I live in a state that has had conservative governors going back to 1991, but has voted Democrat for president and senate in most cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut#Politics
I just want more parties. I am not a member of the same party as John Kerry, but I am close to Dennis Kucinich, I would be happier if I was able to tick a presidential ballot for him. I know many of my friends on the right would be happier if we could get Dr. Ron Paul on those ballots.
The best thing for this country would be to have at least 4 major parties,. - Crimeodial, on 11/16/2009, -4/+9I"m more in favor a pure democracy type system. We get rid of the electoral college that you were referring to and one citizen=one vote. I know it's idealistic and most people are ***** idiots, but I think it would get more Americans involved in the system.
- Gerbil_Juice, on 11/16/2009, -2/+7How dare he be polite and bow to leaders in countries where that's the cultural norm!
Next he'll be insulted for shaking foreign leaders' hands. - Thud, on 11/16/2009, -3/+8OK.... so then GOP losses in 2010 could lead to big wins in 2012?
- pintomp3, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5It's not that your opinion should be more important in the country side, it's that 80% of the population would end up having 100% of the say. It's a tricky balance, to incentive candidates to listen to the whole population. As it stands, they only listen to the lobbyists anyway.
- Elranzer, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4So basically, anyone who isn't the part of the increasingly small minority of Faux News gobbling GOP cheerleaders?
- hfactor, on 11/16/2009, -1/+5Or to put it differently: Why would your opinion become more important just because you moved to the countryside?
- Elranzer, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4You can expect to see something psychotic like Palin/Huckabee in the 2012 general election.
Don't be surprised to see even Texas going blue in 2012. - emkaysmith, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4Being Catholic, Hispanics tend to be socially conservative -- but they're not economically naive. And they're not self-destructive. The GOP has wasted their advantages when it comes to the Spanish-speaking "un-American" vote.
- radix2, on 11/16/2009, -6/+10The underlying question is whether local (State) based Politics reflects national politics. The answer seems to be "not at all". However, in the sole test to date of the popularity of "Tea-Bagger Conservatism" (which I readily admit is unrelated to traditional conservative principles), a Federal seat was gifted to the Democratic Party for the first time in 120 years. That does not play well for the increasingly split Republican Party in 2010 or 2012.
- hughesw2, on 11/16/2009, -1/+5damn, you nailed him on that one
- Elranzer, on 11/16/2009, -3/+7Why? The Republicans are just going to lose again. If only because you guys are not going to run a viable alternative that doesn't appear completely bat-***** insane to the general public.
Good luck trying to re-sell Huckabee, Romney or Palin in 2012. - inajeep, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Looking at the title I had thought this was a wsj opinion piece.
- AmazingSteve, on 11/16/2009, -1/+4Newton was a dirty ***** liberal. Who passed these "laws" of his anyway?
- mnocket, on 11/16/2009, -1/+4You have a problem with equal opportunity when it comes to elections?
- kingcam, on 11/16/2009, -2/+5Really, the David Frum forum? I'll admit that this article actually makes some sense but who would read this site on a regular basis?
- AmazingSteve, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3McCain, sure at one time. Palin on the other hand was nothing more than the Repulican's attempt at waving a vagina at the disgruntled Hilary voters after the DNC passed her over for the VP run.
- emkaysmith, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Really? I think I'm going to save off this thread and feed it back to you in a couple of years. The old GOP is dead. It's going to take them a decade or more to invent a new one -- if ever. And Obama's poll numbers are are at least as good as they were the day after the Inauguration. And that's despite his turning out to be far more conservative than many of his supporters hoped. You should really read something besides the Republican Fake Talking Points Newsletter.
- Inspiron08, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Pirate party anyone?
- falconear, on 11/16/2009, -1/+4A better reform would be for a unicameral legislature. It seems to me like the house can get things done - it's the Senate where all reform goes to die.
- zeabu, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3I'm from such a country with a "pure democracy". We don't have voters colleges, but a vote from a town's worth more than the one of a city.
Actually what would be wrong if cities would decide the outcome? We live closer to our work, so we're more ecological.
We pay more taxes, as a city has more needs.
We're more affected by decisions taken.
If it's an election that would have an uncertain outcome, you'd be stupid to not rally in towns. - zeabu, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2and the democrats stick together to not let conservatives win. Irony, isn't it?
- Spoomeister, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2mnocket - I don't have a problem with elections actually being more specific about expressing the will of the people.
But I think some who advocate breaking the 2-party system don't think through the possible consequences. If you want fairness and equal opportunity, you have to be alright with the possible decisions that might get made. If you want to change the rules, you have to be ok if "your guy" isn't the one who's winning. - zeabu, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2McCain/Palin were moderates? O dear.... :)
- Mujokan, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2Let's worry about 2012 in 2012. People's attention spans are goldfish length. Nothing happening now is going to matter that much.
- Moralogic, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3Steve, that was Amazing. No wonder you are AmazingSteve.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3Christian conservatives ran the USA for the last 8 years you know...
The one thing I would want is a cut-off, so thatt a party which got less than X % would not get representation. This to avoid excessive fragmentation. Having 50 parties none of which is bigger than 15% is as bad or worse than having only 2 viable parties.
I'd say a 5% cut-off would be sufficient to thin the herd. - AmazingSteve, on 11/16/2009, -2/+4I love how they like to pretend the last 8 years didn't exist and that all of America's current problems began on January 20th of this year.
- jbmcb, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2> Corporations demand 1000% interest on their campaign contributions
Most corporations would gladly forgo corporate welfare for lower taxes and streamlined regulation (that is, regulation that doesn't require a team of lawyers to understand what you can and can't do.) - Moralogic, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3Actually is just shows how simple minded you are that you don't understand how an action can cause an equal and opposite reaction. Great job at exampling your inability to think.
- FairDinkumMate, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2Itś tough enough now. If you look around the world at democracies that are governed constantly by coalition governments(which is what an effective 4 or more party system would mean for the US), they are some of the least effective, most corrupt & most unstable governments in the developed world.
Just imagine the pork that would be doled out to get legislation passed! -
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is