- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 2545 Hour
- Reading permission
LaughsatYou Post time: 2013-6-13 09:06
Not simplistic, just a fact there is nothing appealing about an independent in itself for any reaso ...
Point one, if a mainstream party looses out to an independant it makes then at least sit up and think where they are going wrong, that can not be a bad thing. Independants, once in office, tend to be more open and put things in the public domain that the main parties would rather have kept quiet about. At least this is how it works in the UK. Is the US more diverse than the UK? If so in what way.
Point 2, a campaign budget of $1 for a district campaign is crazy. In the last general election in the UK the Labour party only spent £8m ( around $12m ) for the whole country, the 6 major parties put together spent around £30m, most Uk citizens think this is excessive. If people are going into politics to make money then they are going in with the wrong idea, it should be about serving the people.
How many US politicians actually totally contribute and how many sit on the side lines toeing the party line? What percentage of election pledges are broken in the US? Some of my views are considered very right, some very left, where does that leave me? Down the middle does not fit.
If you read back you will see that I advocate the Greek style of early democracy, not the Roman style. Having people take office on a more random basis usually means that you get a better cross section than by taking only those who want to be politicians. The world is getting more and more professional politicians who know nothing about real life, leaving university to go straight into politics.
Regarding the knowledge of history, maybe your boast is correct, maybe it was incorrect but it has nothing to do with the fundamentely flawed political system in the US.