Barack Obama for President.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The word 'change' has ceased to be defined in this election...just another buzzword that everyone's overusing, imo.

Emperor's new clothes and all that jazz...

It's a campaign slogan and Obama didn't invent those. Any Democrat running in this election could run on that message and to a certain degree, be accurate. Some people don't like the ambiguity of the word, but you only need to look at other terms that were used in previous elections....compassionate conservative, family values, etc.

I suppose he could have picked something more like these:

A Chicken in Every Pot. A car in every garage. — 1928 Republican presidential campaign slogan of Herbert Hoover.

Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago? — a 1984 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Ronald Reagan

It's Time to Change America — a theme of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton

Let Well Enough Alone - 1900 presidential campaign slogan of William McKinley.

Morning Again in America Ronald Reagan Slogan for 1984 Presidential Election

Edited July 21, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[rclouse 0]

Here's a really good point about Obama I saw on another website:

tuxq: I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand why people are voting for him;

He's not a Republican.

That's about it. There's a chance he'll screw us too...but with another Republican, it is not a chance but rather a certainty. It's simply a bonus that for the first time we have the chance to vote for a Democrat that isn't an uncharismatic hideous milquetoast. Obama's articulate, intelligent, received an excellent education and seems sincerely philanthropic. Whether he can effect "change" or not is secondary to the fact that he is at least ostensibly not out to fark over the middle and lower class for the sake of his own financial gain, as the last administration was.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a really good point about Obama I saw on another website:

tuxq: I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand why people are voting for him;

He's not a Republican.

That's about it. There's a chance he'll screw us too...but with another Republican, it is not a chance but rather a certainty. It's simply a bonus that for the first time we have the chance to vote for a Democrat that isn't an uncharismatic hideous milquetoast. Obama's articulate, intelligent, received an excellent education and seems sincerely philanthropic. Whether he can effect "change" or not is secondary to the fact that he is at least ostensibly not out to fark over the middle and lower class for the sake of his own financial gain, as the last administration was.

LOL...on the milquetoast part. Good points. This election is in the bag for the Democrats and everyone knows it. That doesn't mean Obama shouldn't work hard for it, it's just that the Bush Administration has fallen so much out of favor with the American public, there's no way for the Republican Party to divorce itself from that failed legacy.

[Heracles 417]

The change that is required to fix the US is to get rid of the presidential system, which only 3rd world countries use. Then adapt the highly successful parliamentary system. Which the majority of 1st world countries use. Now that is change.

The rest is just a bunch of BS used to win an election campaign.

[Dan J 277]

The change that is required to fix the US is to get rid of the presidential system, which only 3rd world countries use. Then adapt the highly successful parliamentary system. Which the majority of 1st world countries use. Now that is change.

The rest is just a bunch of BS used to win an election campaign.

The benefit of the American style way of choosing a president, is that it tends to generate more centrist candidates. This is important, in a country with widely divergent political views.

A parliamentary system, would likely give us a more extreme right or left leader, who would have little power to get anything done.

In this campaign, McCain keeps playing farther to the right, leaving independent voters and possibly some moderate Republicans for Obama to pick up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The change that is required to fix the US is to get rid of the presidential system, which only 3rd world countries use. Then adapt the highly successful parliamentary system. Which the majority of 1st world countries use. Now that is change.

The rest is just a bunch of BS used to win an election campaign.

The benefit of the American style way of choosing a president, is that it tends to generate more centrist candidates. This is important, in a country with widely divergent political views.

A parliamentary system, would likely give us a more extreme right or left leader, who would have little power to get anything done.

In this campaign, McCain keeps playing farther to the right, leaving independent voters and possibly some moderate Republicans for Obama to pick up.

On one side of it - Britain for example, has 3 major parties. However when it comes to elections we don't directly choose our leader (whoever happens to be running the successful party "wins" by default). It doesn't give you a great standard of choice if you like a party, but not the person who is running it and setting policy.

Hence it is theoretically possible for an extremist politician to hold onto power indefinitely as usually we only rely on an unwritten rule that a PM won't serve more than 10 years in office.

That said the US does seem to have a more political extremism than the UK (which in contrast has apathy - equally dangerous) - in that sentimentality and "outrage" often define public debates.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's a really good point about Obama I saw on another website:

tuxq: I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand why people are voting for him;

He's not a Republican.

That's about it. There's a chance he'll screw us too...but with another Republican, it is not a chance but rather a certainty. It's simply a bonus that for the first time we have the chance to vote for a Democrat that isn't an uncharismatic hideous milquetoast. Obama's articulate, intelligent, received an excellent education and seems sincerely philanthropic. Whether he can effect "change" or not is secondary to the fact that he is at least ostensibly not out to fark over the middle and lower class for the sake of his own financial gain, as the last administration was.

LOL...on the milquetoast part. Good points. This election is in the bag for the Democrats and everyone knows it. That doesn't mean Obama shouldn't work hard for it, it's just that the Bush Administration has fallen so much out of favor with the American public, there's no way for the Republican Party to divorce itself from that failed legacy.

I agree that the incumbent party is probably going to take a hit for the perceived failures of the current administration, but I don't think we should assume that its "in the bag" by any means - that seems like wishful thinking IMO.

[Heracles 417]

I prefer to look at the countries using it. And they do speak for themselves. Whereas everyone else seems to be using the parliamentary system or a form of it.

As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."

Democracies with a presidential system of government

* Afghanistan

* Argentina

* Belarus

* Bolivia

* Brazil

* Chile

* Colombia

* Costa Rica

* Cyprus

* Dominican Republic

* Ecuador

* El Salvador

* Guatemala

* Honduras

* Indonesia

* Kenya

* Mexico

* Nicaragua

* Nigeria

* Panama

* Peru

* Philippines

* Republic of China

* Seychelles

* South Korea

* Suriname

* Tanzania

* Uganda

* United States

* Uruguay

* Venezuela

* Zambia

------------------------------

[Heracles 417]

Hence it is theoretically possible for an extremist politician to hold onto power indefinitely as usually we only rely on an unwritten rule that a PM won't serve more than 10 years in office.

That works both ways. Whoever is in office during their second term has no reason to bother trying because the know they will not be back. How would anyone work if their boss said you have 2 years to go. Would they realistically give it their best or just say #### it and slack off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hence it is theoretically possible for an extremist politician to hold onto power indefinitely as usually we only rely on an unwritten rule that a PM won't serve more than 10 years in office.

That works both ways. Whoever is in office during their second term has no reason to bother trying because the know they will not be back. How would anyone work if their boss said you have 2 years to go. Would they realistically give it their best or just say #### it and slack off.

I guess that depends on whether the person took the top job because they craved the limelight that went with it, or because they actually wanted to do that job.

[Heracles 417]

The benefit of the American style way of choosing a president, is that it tends to generate more centrist candidates. This is important, in a country with widely divergent political views.

A parliamentary system, would likely give us a more extreme right or left leader, who would have little power to get anything done.

In this campaign, McCain keeps playing farther to the right, leaving independent voters and possibly some moderate Republicans for Obama to pick up.

The parliamentary system is much more efficient than the status quo. Their living standards, quality of life, corruption ranking etc speaks for itself. For example, who is the senator for infrastructure or employment or health care or education; as is appointed under a parliamentary system. A committee? Or maybe the courts who seem to have a lot to say.

On a side note, people act as if the president is some sort of dictator who has unlimited powers. When in reality he has to go through the checks and balances system. Therefore very little, if anything, can be done without the approval of congress etc. Many people seem to forget that. Hence why a lot of people actually believe someone like Obama can come in and make all of the "changes" he wants. Which is not the case.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US Constitution defined and has protected the country's democratic traditions for 200-odd years.

By way of a contrast the UK does not have a written constitution stipulating - term limits, for example, which leaves the possibility open for the country to be hijacked by extremists (as a general rule this usually happens following a lengthy period of political apathy).

[Heracles 417]

Advantages of a parliamentary system

Some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure. Presidents can also face problems from their own parties, however, as former US President Jimmy Carter often did[citation needed]. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.

It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.[citation needed]

There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."[citation needed]

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.[1]

[Heracles 417]

* orange - parliamentary republics

* green - presidential republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament

* yellow - presidential republics, semi-presidential system

* blue - presidential republics, full presidential system

* red - parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not personally exercise power

* magenta - constitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power, often (but not always) alongside a weak parliament

* purple - absolute monarchies

* brown - republics where the dominant role of a single party is codified in the constitution

* beige - states where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended

* grey - countries which do not fit any of the above systems

Edited July 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not all fun and games in the world of Parliamentary government, given that parliamentary Weimar Germany became one of the worst regimes in history.