Bwahahahahahahahaha.

[theweaselking]

In the American political system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the Democrats who are defeatist socialist pussies, and the Republicans who are racist gay cowards with guns.

These are their stories.


Two questions for the Americans:
Why, out of every 4-year term, do you spend 2 years in "election season"?
Is is *actually* impossible to get non-morons as candidates in your country, or is it just a coincidence that they're all really dumb?

Comments

[kookiemaster.livejournal.com]

rofl

[psyco-path.livejournal.com]

Um. I spend 0 time in election season.

All politicos are dumb. that's why they aren't rocket scientists.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Why, out of every 4-year term, do you spend 2 years in "election season"?

Because that's DEMOCRACY! (tm) in action!

[bluetara2020.livejournal.com]

Actually impossible? No. But those with the most money get the most TV time. And the majority of those are from political or business families - these are people who do not have the best interest of your average citizen at heart. At least, not when compared to their own families and interests.

But they do have spin. People who tell them how to reach the public. Your average person isn't going to be able to say "I identify with you rich white inbred (because your dad wouldn't dare marry (although sleep with...) a girl who's family is worth less than his) dude who's parents paid for your college education at an ivy league school where 1 semester's tuition costs more than I make in 3 years!"

And oh, dear god, does the average person want to believe. Want to believe that someone out there is pulling for them, understands them, is willing to help them...

So the question isn't are they stupid, moronic or imbecilic.* It is are they willing to put what is actually better for their people over what is better for their families/friends/associates? The further question is whether or not they would know what was best for the majority of people not their families/friends/associates.

There are a few politicians, particularly on the local levels, who are really good at what they are supposed to be doing. And if you want to look at some decent people who don't get much screen time, look at those that are running independently or for other parties - the Green party comes to mind.

Personally, I think that before you can run for public office you have to spend a year working a minimum wage job without help from mumsy and father or a trust fund.

*This does not apply to the Bush administration who is all of the above and worse.

[ceramufary.livejournal.com]

*sigh* You know, it hurts a whole lot. But... well, we're a bit more insane this time around than maybe we've been in the past. You might can understand why.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

It really is impossible to get politicians at a national level who aren't dumbbbbbb. This is because two major political parties dominate national elections, and to be a candidate of those parties, one must tow the (dummmmbbbb) party line.

If voters could bother reading party platforms, things would likely be different.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

Here, have a not-UnicornChaser (http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=2360)...

[goaltender.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is impossible to get non-morons.

I think all the qualified people are doing something else. For example, people who are knowledgable and passionate about social issues, human rights, etc., are working in social work, running charities, etc. People who are knowledgeable and passionate about healthcare are doctors, and so on...

The point is, people who really care are out in the community, working in their feild, trying to DO something...and why should they run for office, where they have to get a hundred other politicians to agree with them to get anything done?

The people who run for office are 'pay attention to me,' power hungry, morons.

[matgb]

But why is this an especial problem in the US?

I can name doctors, teachers, former social workers, former activist campaigners etc all in the UK Parliament. I can also name high end economists, very smart academic types, etc.

We have a cross section of smart(ish) people. Canada from what I can see doesn't do that badly for the most part. Why is the US so different?

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's because there's just so many more people -- with so many more different and varied goals. I've heard you guys talking about your idiots among the Quebec Separatists, for example...

[matgb]

*cough*—me Britihs, our host is Canadian.

But yeah, we have idiot politicians. The thing is we also have very (very) smart ones. Both Blair and Brown are incredibly clever (wrong on a lot of issues, but clever), Campbell most certainly is, Huhne is off the chart, Cameron isn't brilliant in comparison but he's still better than a lot or USian politicians.

Also? Population size doesn't make sense as an answer—US population is only about 4-5 times that of the UK.

I think it's lack of population that's the biggest problem—incredibly low population density. Plus a system that encourages personality over policy, 'leadership' over ability, etc.

Politicians in a Parliamentary system have to master their brief to get promoted and rise through the ranks, you actually have to be competent to get anywhere. One of the reasons I'll always oppose electing the executive.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Because in Canada and the UK and other parliamentary countries, you don't vote for the guy with the nicest hair, and not all election advertising is about telling lies about the other candidates.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not congresscritter. But yes.

And we have only one "branch" of government, too, in the sense you mean it. The courts? Not government.

You vote for your local MP. The party (or coalition of parties) with the most MPs makes the government. The leader of the government's party is the Prime Minister.

[matgb]

Nothing 'accidental' about it. In any Parliamentary democracy, the Govt is formed by a Cabinet that represents enough of the Legislature to get it's programme through.

That normally means a coalition after the fact or a large party of disparate interests putting together a coherent programme before the fact.

The Prime Minister is Chair of the cabinet, but can't govern without their support (cf MArgaret Thatcher). If the US was a Parliamentary democracy, Bush would be out by now, a long way out.

You can have a legislature that opposes the Govt. The Govt then falls and you have a fresh election. Much more effective way of governing.

There's a massive debate in academia over Presidents Vs PArliaments. I think the side I'm on is very (very) clear. I can't actually name a Presidential system that hasn't had significant problems at one point or another, overall list the Parliamentary countries then the Presidential ones, stability index last I looked put PArliaments at much more succesful.

SRSLY, there's even some maths on the odds of there being a coup attempt that correlates—5 years since I read that though.

[jerril]

As MatGB pointed out, the relationship is the other way. We can't have a Prime Minister who is opposed by Parliament (our answer to Congress). If "Canada's New Government" aka the ruling Conservative party decided that Stephen Harper wasn't following the party line any more, then they'd vote against him on the next confidence motion and poof, new election, and oh by the way you're not the head of the Conservative Party this time, so sorry.

Budgets are automatically confidence motions, so they're guaranteed at least once chance to kick the bums out a year. Usually more, because each Speech From The Throne is also automatically a confidence motion, and there's one or two of those a year as well. The PM's office can declare any random vote to be a confidence motion, and there might be other classes of "automatically a confidence motion" votes that I don't know about.

[goaltender.livejournal.com]

Good point…and I don’t know.

Our politicians started out in other professions as well, but the really excellent professionals seem to stay in their professions.

I don’t know enough about foreign politics to compare the U.K’s or Canada’s government to ours. I do know that people I’ve talked to from those places complain about their government.

People in the U.S. also complain about their government, myself included. It’s far from perfect, but is it really that bad, or worse than anyone else’s?

We have a relatively large amount of freedom here and a relatively large amount of the population is prosperous.

It seems that the #1 gripe these days is the war in Iraq, which the U.K., Australia, and quite a few others followed us into. So, even if you believe we are worse, are we really that much worse?

[matgb]

I don’t know enough about foreign politics to compare the U.K’s or Canada’s government to ours.

I, for the record, do. Partially because you can't not be interested in the domestic politics of the only current superpower, and partially because I studied it as part of my BA. I always hate it when people wave their paper qualifications around—I don't say my opionion is correct, but it is well informed.

In a democracy, people will always bitch about their govt. Also, most Brits and Canadians will know less than I do (note both less and most there). The difference is the level of bitching and the level of the problem.

There is no way (no goddamn freaking way) that someone like Dubbya would've got into high office in a Parliamentary system. Might manage Cabinet for a bit, but then he'd be out.

Iraq is an issue, yes, but #1 out of many.

relatively large amount of the population is prosperous.

And a significant proportion is dirt poor as well. According to the CIA Gini Coefficiant, the US is lower than any other significant country at 45 (Iran is slightly better at 43), Canada is at 33, Australia at 35 and the UK at 36 (low is good). Some of the countries better are so dirt poor it's irrelevent, but the rest are countries that are fairly wealthy. In fact, at a scan, I don't see any OECD country with a worse record than the US, but I might be missing them.

Your prosperity comes at a bigger cost than most other countries, and a lot of your per capita wealth can be explained by lower costs & population density making business costs much lower, etc.

By the measures I, personally, care about, the US is worse of than many countries, and I'm actively involved in UK politics to try to improve our status as well.

As for the relative amount of freedom? Our host regularly links to the ways that's being eroded—happening to us as well mind...

I'll stop rambling now. (and I got interrupted half way through so this comment is a bit delayed, apols if you've had responses already)

[goaltender.livejournal.com]

I’m sorry, I don’t see how that Gini coefficient has anything to do with our level of prosperity. That is a measure of how evenly income is distributed. A bad score simply means unequal distribution – but that doesn’t mean that the folks at the bottom of the distribution are less prosperous than people from other countries. It is more likely because we have more mega-rich people throwing off the wealth distribution at the top end – excuse them for not redistributing their wealth to the poor. Wait, they do. This country gives more to charity and foreign aid than anyone. Does the coefficient account for that?

I also don’t understand why people are dying in deserts and oceans to get here if we are so poor/worse/etc.

Let me be clear here: I’m not trying to be rude or fight with you. I respect your point of view and am enjoying our civil debate. Have a nice day!

[publius1.livejournal.com]

You can number the absolutely fantastic holders of the Presidency on the fingers of both hands, and they were largely and lopsidedly near the founding of the United States. There were some Good presidents, but the vast majority were just placeholders, or were actively detrimental to the country.

We're in a bad patch right now, though, because what we NEED is another Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, but instead what we've got are Van Burens and Chester A. Arthurs. Or worse, Nixons and Carters.

Off Topic

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

But I thought you'd be interested:

The Justice Department today told the FCC that it opposes Net Neutrality.

Re: Off Topic

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Mother fucker. What the fucking fuck fuckity fuck do they have business weighing in on this for...

Re: Off Topic

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Fucking fuck fuck fuck McFucking fuckity fuckles.

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

Spent much time in rural America? If so, then you know that most Americans are paranoid, insecure and never developed intellectually beyond High School. The non-brevity of the "election season" is mostly due to the fact that the dumbasses outnumber the thinkers in this country and the dumbasses keep getting distracted by the bullshit proposed by the Two Lesser Evils parties. At its heart, the problem is that our political system is a sewer and the people are too lazy/stupid to clean it.

[matgb]

Don't need the 'nest up', we get it already (branches of Govt, etc).

As for 'costs that much'? It doesn't need to.

For example, the British Govt sells the rights to broadcast TV and Radio to the commercial sector, on behalf of society—it's a nice little revenue earner.

Consequently, part of the terms of the licence ist hat during an election period, candidates get free spots to make broadcasts in. But here's the crucial bit—other political adverts on TV aren't allowed.

Restricts 'free speech', but only on a technicality, and it could be argued even under the US system that it actually either enhances it or doesn't affect it.

Also, because of the parliamentary nature of the way our administrations are formed, candidates don't have to compete against each other within the party in the same way, so spending is reduced. You can see above comments for why I prefer this, John's inbox is swamped already...

[matgb]

*neXt up, d'oh!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Why, out of every 4-year term, do you spend 2 years in "election season"?

I was wondering the same thing myself. It may very well have to do with a goof someone made while writing a law.

We currently have a cap on how much cash any one person can give to a candidate. For example, Hillary has 10,000 supporters who have given the max amount . . . for 2007.

Come 2008, one of those supporters is going to give again, triggering a court battle and decision. If the courts uphold the law as written, the Clinton campaign alone could reap an additional $23 million from those original 10K donors.

Is is *actually* impossible to get non-morons as candidates in your country, or is it just a coincidence that they're all really dumb?

Faux News excoriates and demonizes any candidate with half and brain and a chance. There really is a vast, right-wing conspiracy here, backed by a shit load of cash.

It sucks. I envy you up north.