Log in

No account? Create an account
Andrei in the office


Andrei's Universe

One man's journey from infinity to nothingness

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
politics, voting, Obama

I suppose I support 'that one'

Believe it or not, I'm really not for a bipartisan system. Everytime I hear the phrase, "I reach across the aisle" it really makes me sick. The truth is, the reasons behind saying the system is broken aren't the real reasons.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was someone who put the legislation in an easy to find place with translations out of the arcane language of 'legal' into hard facts of what the implications were?

Wouldn't you love to see who specifically tacked on the amendment to the bailout bill that said, "And by the way; all the taxes we used to collect from Puerto Rico for importing rum; lets give it back to their government for the next 2 years."

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the only topic the two parties agreed on wasn't "How can we make more laws to prevent a tertiary party from gaining a foothold to keep us in check?"

Will Barack Obama help fix these things? Probably not.

Does the party have a plan that might at least start reversing some of the problems that we've fallen into in the past 8 years? Oh yes.

I often hear that a president can't claim the economic rise and success that occurs during their term. That Clinton didn't help the economy; he inherited the work of Regan and Bush the first. Well, we see what the next president is about to inherit. And let me tell you. I don't see the budget snapping back in the next 4 years. I see it beginning to turn.

I don't like the idea of privatising Social Security and Health after what privatising and deregulation has done to the banking system. I don't like the idea of health being reduced to 'which state can offer the least for the least?'

I'm raising money in the hopes that my small contribution will join other's small contributions to help put into the White House the first candidate in pretty much my entire life that I can believe in.

I've set a goal for $1000 that I've helped raise. And truthfully, I'm really only hoping to get $750. Because if I can raise that much for Obama, I'll happily put in the other quarter.

I'm doing okay so far. But I am going to be on this for the next month. Because frankly... I don't like the outlook of a McCain administration.

Please consider supporting Obama's campaign with funds as well as your philosophical support. And most assuredly above all else. Vote. Even if your state seems like a done deal... Vote.

Thank you.

  • 1
Wouldn't you love to see who specifically tacked on the amendment to the bailout bill that said, "And by the way; all the taxes we used to collect from Puerto Rico for importing rum; lets give it back to their government for the next 2 years." [...] Will Barack Obama help fix these things? Probably not.

Actually, if you read Obama's position, he wants to put all earmarks in an online database so they can be easily searched and see the light of day, including who was responsible for adding the earmark.

And it's also McCain's position to provide for more governmental transparency by putting earmarks in a searchable database. He made this point during the Republican Convention, and Palin has made governmental transparency using technology a core platform element.

The reality is, I'm a little cynical about such things--but not because I don't think they won't do it, but because my take is that the government is going to provide this sort of transparency regardless, and that transparency will be driven by the bureaucrats of our government, not the Executive or Legislative branches.

In other words, both are taking credit for a movement that is already under way.

It also goes to my cynicism about both candidates on the economy: I just saw Obama state that he believed the Fed Chairman should coordinate with the G8 + other liberal democracies to fix the global economy--hours after Bernanke phoned these folks. Obama, in other words, demanded action that was already in progress--and I will bet money a week from now he'll take credit for what was essentially a Bush initiative, claiming the government is already following his lead.

To be fair, McCain did the same thing in the debates last night, talking about how he wanted banks to start purchasing commercial paper--hours after the Fed announced it would start buying commercial paper.

*sigh* On the economy both are flaming fucking idiots.

So, what would you want?

If you are not for a bipartisan system, what would you replace it with if you were king for a day?

Re: So, what would you want?

3 party system and Hare-Clark voting for starters.

3 partys to mirror the original idea of a 3 ring circus...err system for checks and balances

Edited at 2008-10-08 08:08 pm (UTC)

Re: So, what would you want?

Why 3? Wny not 'N', where 'N' is relatively unbounded, like the parliamentary systems used by Great Britain or Israel?

I mean, with 3 you almost guarantee that a coalition government will need to be formed for a majority government to take power in Congress. (Most congressional party heads, and in a parliamentary government, the selection of the Prime Minister, is done by majority party control.)

Re: So, what would you want?

In general I dislike the pluralism that our gov't is based almost entirely on. The partisan system seems to have locked legislation into our side vs. your side. The entire election process is transformed into root for the good guys and despise the bad guys.

At least in a plus 2 system there is the chance that one group may side with different groups on issues. I'm fine with N. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is any way to dig our system out of where it is now.

Re: So, what would you want?

Well, and the interesting part with a parliamentary system such as the one used in Italy (where N is large) is the fact that while nearly every position is represented by a party. Yet, once their parliament is seated, parliament necessarily has to organize itself into a 'government' by the different parties forming a coalition into a majority ruling government and into a minority "loyal opposition."

In other words, once seated, even Italy reorganize themselves into two 'super-parties.'

Such a system is less stable: a vote of "no confidence" can be called at any time, which forces elections at unpredictable times.

It also does something interesting: in an N-party system you can vote for and join the party that you believe represents you best, and watch them compromise themselves in a majority or minority party. In our 2-party system, you get to compromise yourself depending on local politics.

See, the "Republicans" is not a single mindset, neither is the "Democrats." Each party is essentially a coalition of different philosophical positions and political positions, loosely organized around the notion (using the more accurate terms) of Federalism (Democrats) verses Anti-Federalism (Republicans)--though because all politics are local, that's not even very well defined. We like to paint the parties as stereotypes of the extreme of each: Republicans as bitter people clinging to guns or religion and afraid of those who aren't like them, Democrats as arugula eating elitists dangerously in bed with lunatic anti-democratic socialists. But the stereotypes aren't true.

But once you drill past the two party caucus system in Congress, individual politicians vote for or against bills depending more upon the voters who sent them there. It's why the first attempt to pass the Reform bill failed--it failed largely because Democrats and Republicans voted against the bill despite being strong-armed by their parties. It's also why in 2005 with a Republican President, a near supermajority Republican control of the House, control of the Senate, and 7 out of 9 supreme court justices appointed by Republican Presidents did not and could not overturn Roe v. Wade: if you subscribe to the notion that the Republicans are a single mind about issues, Roe v. Wade should have been toast in 2005. But the reality is there were more than enough pro-choice Republicans in Congress and in the Supreme Court to make overthrowing Roe v. Wade a numerical impossibility--because the people who put them there are pro-choice.

  • 1