2016 Presidential Race Thread

William_the_Bloody · 06-25-2015, 12:05 AM

Things don't change drastically in the United States because the government in structured in a way that typically pushes everything to the center of the political spectrum. If you look at some different models of government...

1. Germany (Mainland Europe)

Proportional Representation: This usually results in a big party (center right/left) having to unite with a smaller (hard right/left) fringe party to form government. As a result, the center party usually has to concede to some of the demands of the smaller parties to stay in power. So you therefore have movement on things like GMO's & immigration.

The drawback is this form of government is more prone to destabilization, especially during tough times as we have seen... in the past with Europe.

2. UK/Canada/Australia

Parliamentary system: Winner takes all, unless you end up with a minority government. Once a majority is obtained that party has total rule. As consequence, fringe parties are marginalized and basically confined to the opposition backbenches where they achieve f)ck all.

This is probably the most stable form of government, although it does not have the safeguards built in that United States has to prevent centralized tyranny. The drawback is that you get less progressive/regressive change, so a lot of people feel marginalized on issues that matter to them, hence the rise of third parties in the UK (UKIP: immigration) (Green Party: Environment)

The United States

The Presidential System: The founding fathers did there best to set up a government that would not succumb to centralized tyranny, via implementing the separation of powers.

In the United States everything is pushed towards the center of the spectrum because you not only have to win the executive, but you also have to win the senate and House of Representatives to wield any considerable influence. This leads to constant compromise and deal breaking.

On the positive, everything gets pushed to the center of the political spectrum with a slight bend in favour of the Republicans, because its easier to limit government under this system. On the negative, fringe voices or specific issues important to people on the left and right are often marginalized, though there have been times when the Democrats or Republicans have had complete centralized power by controlling all three houses, particularly during war times (FDR, the last Bush)

06-25-2015, 12:05 AM	#37 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Things don't change drastically in the United States because the government in structured in a way that typically pushes everything to the center of the political spectrum. If you look at some different models of government... 1. Germany (Mainland Europe) Proportional Representation: This usually results in a big party (center right/left) having to unite with a smaller (hard right/left) fringe party to form government. As a result, the center party usually has to concede to some of the demands of the smaller parties to stay in power. So you therefore have movement on things like GMO's & immigration. The drawback is this form of government is more prone to destabilization, especially during tough times as we have seen... in the past with Europe. 2. UK/Canada/Australia Parliamentary system: Winner takes all, unless you end up with a minority government. Once a majority is obtained that party has total rule. As consequence, fringe parties are marginalized and basically confined to the opposition backbenches where they achieve f)ck all. This is probably the most stable form of government, although it does not have the safeguards built in that United States has to prevent centralized tyranny. The drawback is that you get less progressive/regressive change, so a lot of people feel marginalized on issues that matter to them, hence the rise of third parties in the UK (UKIP: immigration) (Green Party: Environment) The United States The Presidential System: The founding fathers did there best to set up a government that would not succumb to centralized tyranny, via implementing the separation of powers. In the United States everything is pushed towards the center of the spectrum because you not only have to win the executive, but you also have to win the senate and House of Representatives to wield any considerable influence. This leads to constant compromise and deal breaking. On the positive, everything gets pushed to the center of the political spectrum with a slight bend in favour of the Republicans, because its easier to limit government under this system. On the negative, fringe voices or specific issues important to people on the left and right are often marginalized, though there have been times when the Democrats or Republicans have had complete centralized power by controlling all three houses, particularly during war times (FDR, the last Bush)