Things you'd like to see changed in America

[Skeleon]

Get rid of (or at least reduce) the religious influence on your politics. Seriously.
And if you're for freedoms of corporations, also be for freedom of individuals (abortion, gay rights and so on), the hypocrisy of some people there is astounding.

 

[Seldon2639]

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

Canada.

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

The Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Finland... I could go on quite a bit longer

[Citations needed]

Not that I'm claiming you guys to be wrong, but I honestly don't know much about anywhere you mentioned except for Germany and Canada (which, as far as I know, are dominated by two major parties and a smattering of smaller, though arguably influential, parties).

 

[Eleuthera]

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

Canada.

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

The Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Finland... I could go on quite a bit longer

[Citations needed]

Not that I'm claiming you guys to be wrong, but I honestly don't know much about anywhere you mentioned except for Germany and Canada (which, as far as I know, are dominated by two major parties and a smattering of smaller, though arguably influential, parties).

I'm not going to look all of them up. But this [http://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/members_of_parliament/members_of_parliament/index.jsp] links to the official site of the Dutch second chamber (congress) sort by party to get a good overview.

 

[Skeleon]

...except for Germany and Canada (which, as far as I know, are dominated by two major parties and a smattering of smaller, though arguably influential, parties).

Interestingly, the German CDU's and SPD's latest federal election results are a lot lower than was previously the case, while the smaller parties (all of them) gained a lot of votes. And even before this latest development, the smaller parties were already of big importance because they could steer their larger partner's course in several matters (for example, the FDP would steer the CDU towards stronger deregulation of the market, while the Green party would make the SPD invest in renewable energies and similar). This system is very important in my eyes because it gives a voice to those needs which the two major parties would happily ignore otherwise.

 

[Seldon2639]

Interestingly, the German CDU's and SPD's latest federal election results are a lot lower than was previously the case, while the smaller parties (all of them) gained a lot of votes. And even before this latest development, the smaller parties were already of big importance because they could steer their larger partner's course in several matters (for example, the FDP would steer the CDU towards stronger deregulation of the market, while the Green party would make the SPD invest in renewable energies and similar). This system is very important in my eyes because it gives a voice to those needs which the two major parties would happily ignore otherwise.

I'm not going to look all of them up. But this [http://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/members_of_parliament/members_of_parliament/index.jsp] links to the official site of the Dutch second chamber (congress) sort by party to get a good overview.

That does raise an interesting question as to what the validity of a "third" party really is. If, as in Germany, the "third" parties in the Netherlands function more as ancillary and supplemental parties to the "main" party to which they align, are they truly third parties? I don't ask, by the way, as a stalwart defender of American politics, but as a student of political science.

Strictly speaking, America has a goodly number of "third" parties, but the members of those parties endorse (or run as) members of the larger parties to which they are aligned. The Green party endorses, or runs, as democrats. Libertarians tend to vote Republican. And those parties do have some representation in congress (Ron Paul, as an example). So, are we simply arguing semantics, or is there a real difference?

But, beyond that, here's my thing: given the current constitutional structure of American democracy, could a third-party form? We're a winner-take-all system, where most parliaments are proportional representation (thus allowing for a small-vote-getting party to have some representation and gain some power). Without changing the fundamental structure of our government and voting system, would it be possible to bring in a third-party?

Or is the argument, as I believe most people who want a "third party" advocate, that we should reform the system itself?

 

[Eleuthera]

That does raise an interesting question as to what the validity of a "third" party really is. If, as in Germany, the "third" parties in the Netherlands function more as ancillary and supplemental parties to the "main" party to which they align, are they truly third parties? I don't ask, by the way, as a stalwart defender of American politics, but as a student of political science.

Strictly speaking, America has a goodly number of "third" parties, but the members of those parties endorse (or run as) members of the larger parties to which they are aligned. The Green party endorses, or runs, as democrats. Libertarians tend to vote Republican. And those parties do have some representation in congress (Ron Paul, as an example). So, are we simply arguing semantics, or is there a real difference?

But, beyond that, here's my thing: given the current constitutional structure of American democracy, could a third-party form? We're a winner-take-all system, where most parliaments are proportional representation (thus allowing for a small-vote-getting party to have some representation and gain some power). Without changing the fundamental structure of our government and voting system, would it be possible to bring in a third-party?

Or is the argument, as I believe most people who want a "third party" advocate, that we should reform the system itself?

I agree with you on the point that a "winner takes all" system will most likely turn into a 2 party system. Here in the Netherlands the possibility of one party gaining a true majority is almost zero, they will almost always have to cooperate with one or more parties to get a working government. Even the party that gets the most seats in congress isn't guaranteed to be in the government if they can't get any other parties to agree to work with them.

Our current government is made up of 3 parties, the CDA (Christian Democrats), PVDA (Social Democrats) and CU (Christian Union) being the largest, second largest and 6th parties. The smaller party was needed to get the required majority in parliament, and a coalition with any of the larger parties (3-5th place) was deemed impossible due to differences of policies.

 

[Lord George]

Someone call in the EOD units. I think we have an IED waiting for us on the road ahead.

That's either one of the more clever ways of expressing concern about a coming flame war I've ever heard, or I really don't get it.

I'll say one thing, abolish the Two Party system since it divides the country and sends what could be an honest debate into glittery eyed fanboyism for whatever party you affiliate yourself with.

I've always loved this argument. What in the name of sweet, fancy, Moses would you suggest we "replace" it with? It's not like in the constitution it says "oh, btw guys, only have two parties. K, thx, bye". The two-party system is a natural result of any representative democracy (seriously, it happens basically everywhere), especially when there are benefits to having control of a chamber of the legislature or executive beyond mere majorities for passing bills. One group of people says "hey, we can get this cool stuff, like controlling committees, and the Speakership, and get better offices if we're one party, rather than fifty small parties", to which everyone else responds "well, we should band together, too, huh?" Throw in any ideological divide on any big principle, and you have a two-party system.

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

The UK has 3, Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats, with power switching around every so often, there's also about 20 minor parties that hold the odd bit of power (like the green party or the BNP). It all works out well and we function as a democracy.

 

[TSED]

Canada's got the Bloc, NDP, the Liberals, and the Progressive-Conservatives. Along with a few other inconsequentials (green party, for example, or neo-rhino).

The PCs used to be two separate parties, but they joined together because they were sick of splitting the silly vot- I mean, uh, the right wing vote.

Liberals are basically Canada's version of the Democrats. They were in power for FOREVER, then a little scandal occurred and people freaked out over it, and blah blah blah, people didn't want to vote for them. It didn't help them that their new party head started blabbing on about a 'carbon tax' (keep in mind a LOT of Canadians need to travel large distances on a regular basis. We're a much more spread out country than the USA).

The NDP are farther left than that. They're still hugely influential, but I am pretty sure they've never won a federal election. They are definitely moving in that direction, though, and I could see (but definitely would not guarantee) them winning a minority government as soon as they get a party head who knows wth he's doing.

The Bloc Quebecois are basically french separationists. They get a LOT of seats and actually hold some major political power, despite only running in one province (Quebec).

Current house looks like this (from wiki):

PC: 143 seats
Liberals: 77
Bloc: 47
NDP: 36
Independent: 1
Vacant: 4



The Green Party has no seats. They're hilarious. I remember hearing their leader say [and this is paraphrased, not quoted] "well, if people under 18 could vote we definitely would have gotten some seats!"
(... politics fail.)

A lot of people don't vote for NDP because they don't want to 'waste their vote,' and vote for the liberals instead. There was a major split in the 'left leaning' parties this year, for many various reasons. It essentially boils down to ineffective leadership, and no one feels confident voting for anyone because everyone's a frigging MORON now.


This supports your point a little, but it is only via tangent. I imagine a strong, competent-seeming leader would win that party the majority easily, unless they were from Bloc (Quebec simply doesn't have the population to do so).

Senate is a little different, it's basically entirely Liberals and PCs. Liberals still have the majority in there, though, barely.


EDIT:: ever is not never.

 

[Ghost8585]

Make gym memberships and personal nutritionists mandatory.

I think I understand where you're going with that but having a membership does not mean a person will actually go to the gym.

I will agree with the metric system change though. It's not that hard to grasp, so why not teach both in schools?

Personally I would change the government/corporate/public relationship. Joke about France all you want but at least the people there keep their government in check.

 

[Sick boy]

You don't needa change america, the world needs changing.
1) The worlds most famous Rapper is white. (Eminem.)
2) The worlds best golfer is black. (Tiger Woods.)
3) and the french are calling the american's arrogant.

 

[samsonguy920]

Wow, and yet none of these things suggested will do anything to help improve things for people around the world, much less the US.
1: When someone ponies up the money to pay for all the changes in signage and books, okay.
2: That ain't gonna change, and frankly I don't care that the NFL teams use their hands most of the time.
3: Somebody still pays attention to baseball?
4: We spent that money converting to metric.
5: Hollywood gets nothing right, why quibble over language?
Yes, the US is not the smartest country in the world, we get that. We did let a screwed up electorate put a complete idiot in the white house for 8 years. We can either continue pointing fingers at each other saying how much we are each a dummy, or we can move on and figure out how to get out of the messes we are in. Grow up.

 

[Agema]

What is the big deal with the Metric system? All it is, is a way to measure. Our system is different. No system is better. Yes I am aware that Metric is based on 10, and ours is not.

If you think that, you obviously don't do science.

It's not just that the imperial/customary system is not base 10, but that the bases constantly change: for instance, the inch is divided into 16ths, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile.

* * *

I think what would improve America is reintroduction of some form of media regulation encouraging balanced reporting. Currently, America seems to have two political wings with an increasing gulf of incomprehensibility and antagonistism to each other, and I wonder it that's because because each side is listening to media that doesn't bother to explain why the other side thinks the way it does.

 

[heyheysg]

2) Football uses feet, American Football uses hands and is similar to rugby, therefore American Rugby.

Problem Solved.

Spoiler

And Rednecks. Need I say more?

That is full of win

 

[Beatrix]

I could put a very long list here, but it all boils down to the same thing.

The majority of its inhabitants.

 

[Zemalac]

Non American here, few things.

1) Metric system. Nuff said
2) Football uses feet, American Football uses hands and is similar to rugby, therefore American Rugby.
3) World Series means the whole world not just the US, incidentally, I think the Japanese won one of the baseball world series?
4) the US owe China a lot of money. Please pay it back, it's getting scary.
5) Bad foreign languages in Hollywood, where even the Chinese can't speak Mandarin and people speaking Cantonese and Mandarin can communicate without any problems

1) Not enough said, actually. The American scientific community uses the metric system for everything they do, because it's easier for them. Everyone else doesn't, because--guess what?--they don't need to. Why make the entire country switch to metric, an operation that would cost billions of dollars (replacing road signs and the like) and cause confusion and annoyance to everyone who grew up with and knows the current system (that is, everyone), when they don't really need to? Cost-benefit analysis: the costs outweigh the benefits for the general public.

2) What? Why does that matter?

This guy seems to know more about the subject than I do, so I'll steal his answer.

Football is a root word for a any sport that involves kicking a ball through a goal.

Okay, soccer was originally called football in the U.S. Up until 1974, the governing body of soccer in the U.S was called United States Soccer Football Association. They dropped football out of the title.

So here's what happened. Everyone called it football to start with. Rugby football was catching on, So the americans called Rugby, football, and you called it rugby. Soccer started catching on as a way to distinguish it, you had no need of this since you stuck with rugby.

So It Ain't gonna happen. No matter how much you whine about it. We used the name for a long time before we dropped it.

To be frank, this sounds like a personal beef of yours rather than something that it would be important to change.

3) Okay, this one I could agree with. My only answer would be that calling it the "World Series" sounds better for purposes of drama. As for your second statement, that the Japanese once won the World Series...if the "world" is limited to the US, as is stated in your thesis, that wouldn't be possible. You've made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

4) Not only no, but hell no. The United States paying back the debts it owes China would, in effect, destroy the world economy. It would drain large amounts of the American money supply, which would drastically reduce the buying capacity of China's biggest market, thus wrecking their own economy. And when two of the biggest economies in the world crash, everyone else suffers for it.

5) Story over realism. Welcome to the wonderful world of fiction. Not too sure why it's a problem: if the movies are being produced for an English-speaking audience, and the plot requires minor inconsistencies with real life languages that are not English and thus not absolutely essential to the movie, they aren't going to hesitate for an instant before changing reality to suit the needs of the production.

Also: In regards to the debate in the thread about the two-party system in the US: This is because America does not have run-off elections, which is a result of the winner-take-all system (someone else mentioned this--I'm just going over it again). In, for example, the French system, the candidate for president needs a majority, not just more votes than his opponent. As such, if a candidate doesn't have a majority (over 50% of the vote), run-off elections are held where the candidates of minor parties can trade their votes for influence, thus making the whole idea of a minor party worthwhile. In the US, that doesn't happen, and any ideological parties that form have their platforms absorbed by the two main parties. You can't just scrap the system--it's not something that was intentionally put together, it just happened, and as such it is presumably the best way of doing things within this system.

 

[Crayzor]

Relgious nuts. (I know they are everywhere, but America's seem like the worst (excluding terrorists obviously))

 

[Nmil-ek]

It's existance.

http://instantrimshot.com/

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Fewer commercials!!! Actually this goes for all of N. America. You don't need so many fucking commercial breaks during a fucking show.

 

[Sebenko]

The foul capitalist system!
Amerikan pigdogs!