01-07-2008, 12:01 AM
[quote freeradical]Okay, perhaps asserted was a bad word choice, implied would be better. If we had more than two major political parties, the power of the Democratic and Republican parties would be reduced.
If you are responding to my post then no. I neither implied nor asserted what you seem to infer.
George Washington argued otherwise.
An indefensible thesis on its own. Notable, also, in that no one here (save you) seems to be advocating reduced powers for politicians. For my part, I am in favor of a strong federal government, so long as that government is responsive to the people, and not (solely) to the monied interests or to political parties intent on securing and preserving their own hegemony.
Again, the bicameral legislature was devised so that the interests of the less populous states would not be ignored. The Senator from Wyoming has exactly the political clout intended by the framers.
The process of electing a president, on the other hand, has endured much tinkering specifically to address the desire of party politicians that the executive fall entirely to one party or another after an election.
What is, I think, puzzling to voodoopenguin is that the popular press in this country behaves as though the President is elected by popular vote, when this is not the case.
Edit -- stupid html tags.
If you are responding to my post then no. I neither implied nor asserted what you seem to infer.
In any case, one of the major purposes of political parties is to get candidates of similar ideology elected. They are a necessary evil.
George Washington argued otherwise.
The only true way to reduce the power of politicians is to reduce the amount of money they control. The Libertarian position.
An indefensible thesis on its own. Notable, also, in that no one here (save you) seems to be advocating reduced powers for politicians. For my part, I am in favor of a strong federal government, so long as that government is responsive to the people, and not (solely) to the monied interests or to political parties intent on securing and preserving their own hegemony.
What I meant was that there is precedent for one man not having one vote when we elect Senators. Going by the population ratios in the 2000 election, a voter in Wyoming gets 50 votes for Senator, while someone in California gets one vote. Or to put this another way, A Senator from Wyoming has 50 times the political clout he should have.
Again, the bicameral legislature was devised so that the interests of the less populous states would not be ignored. The Senator from Wyoming has exactly the political clout intended by the framers.
The process of electing a president, on the other hand, has endured much tinkering specifically to address the desire of party politicians that the executive fall entirely to one party or another after an election.
What is, I think, puzzling to voodoopenguin is that the popular press in this country behaves as though the President is elected by popular vote, when this is not the case.
Edit -- stupid html tags.