Are you Liberal or Conservative or somewhere in between?

[Andara Bledin]

I would very much like to see campaigns become a public-funding thing with limits on the sorts of things they are allowed to say.

It would be nice to see the elections not going to the highest bidder with the most charismatic smile.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

It would be nice to see the elections not going to the highest bidder with the most charismatic smile.

Who in turn needs to lie through his teeth in order to fit the parameters decided on by his political base to the exclusion of other supporters. Even if those are qualities that should never be placed in a position of leadership. -.-

That was one reason Bush baffled me so. At the time there was this real weird want for a leader that was "Just like us" that you could have a beer with ( Nevermind Bush isn't remotely like them ). Then that spiraled out into the strange anti-elitism vibe whereby it seems like a good chunk of America doesn't want anyone running the country thats more qualified to run it than they are.

I don't understand that. Why would you actively not want someone more intelligent and capable than yourself in the White House? I want the leader of my country to be smarter and more capable than me because of the level of responsibility they have to hold.

I want to look up to my leader, not across at him as I pour him a beer.

[Panacea]

I don't understand that. Why would you actively not want someone more intelligent and capable than yourself in the White House? I want the leader of my country to be smarter and more capable than me because of the level of responsibility they have to hold.

I want to look up to my leader, not across at him as I pour him a beer.

Andrew Jackson was the first President to do this, and he did it very effectively. People respond to a politican who is "just like them" because of the implication that politician will understand and be responsive to their problems. "Elitists" are accused of being too remote and distant, and out of touch with the needs of the electorate. Woodrow Wilson had that problem, so did Hoover, and so does Obama now (in spite of the fact he got into politics as a community activist).

Teddy Roosevelt was another President who successfully cultivated this image. He was the cream of the East Coast upper crust crop . . . who spent a lot of time out West hunting, and who would do physical labor on the White House grounds to set up the image of a hard working man while reading a book every day.

Bush failed to cultivate this image because he was not a good public speaker and not particularly intelligent. However, he managed to appeal to the common denominator by validating their fears. Gore had the distant and remote problem (ie Al "Bore") and never managed to overcome it completely.

We don't value education in America, not really. We value hard work and cleverness, but that's not the same thing. Which is really funny, because in order to be successful at "entreprenureship" you have to be smart, and you have to be educated even if it's self educated.

[Andara Bledin]

Welcome to Good Ol' Boy Tribalist Politics at it's finest. >_<

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

The US stays a two party system because its purely a money driven system. You can't be a politician in the US without cash and the amount of cash you have at your disposal denotes how far up the political ladder you can compete at. Which means either being filthy rich, or selling yourself out to be filthy rich.

In Canada, your campaign is publically funded and your private funding/spending is capped. So the playing field levels out and results in several viable parties. Historically this has given us around 4 major parties, with a 5th smaller party coming and going at times. Not to mention the variety of parties at a provincial level.

We do, for example, have three national Marxist/Communist parties. A couple of Libertarian parties, a Pirate party, several Marijuana parties and a Sex Party ( Yes, really. ). There are also satirical parties that are quite literally official parties capable of running candidates ( They tend to only run a few, and just hang around to poke fun at other parties shenanighans during elections ).

The Rhino party is a good example. Who, every election, vow to not keep any promises they make if elected. ;p

If I wanted too, even I could run in a federal election.

To summarize: The Canadian electoral system is more balanced and accessible due to REGULATIONS.

Why did Canada do better during the recession than the U.S.? Strict banking REGULATIONS that kept the bottom from falling out.

And yet here in America you have a group of conservatives who call themselves the Tea Party who complain that not only do we have TOO MUCH regulation as it is but in order to really get the country back on track we need to dismantle all that too.

What's wrong with this picture?

[lordlundar]

The US stays a two party system because its purely a money driven system. You can't be a politician in the US without cash and the amount of cash you have at your disposal denotes how far up the political ladder you can compete at. Which means either being filthy rich, or selling yourself out to be filthy rich.

In Canada, your campaign is publically funded and your private funding/spending is capped. So the playing field levels out and results in several viable parties. Historically this has given us around 4 major parties, with a 5th smaller party coming and going at times. Not to mention the variety of parties at a provincial level.

We do, for example, have three national Marxist/Communist parties. A couple of Libertarian parties, a Pirate party, several Marijuana parties and a Sex Party ( Yes, really. ). There are also satirical parties that are quite literally official parties capable of running candidates ( They tend to only run a few, and just hang around to poke fun at other parties shenanighans during elections ).

The Rhino party is a good example. Who, every election, vow to not keep any promises they make if elected. ;p

If I wanted too, even I could run in a federal election.

Agreed. Just doing a search on current Canadian political parties produces an extremely varied (and weird and wacky) list. Most of them have next to no chance of getting a seat so they tend to focus more on activision and lobbying.

[Panacea]

And yet here in America you have a group of conservatives who call themselves the Tea Party who complain that not only do we have TOO MUCH regulation as it is but in order to really get the country back on track we need to dismantle all that too.

What's wrong with this picture?

Part of the problem is we DO have some really stupid regulations on some things. And we never get rid of regulations that are outdated or make no sense.

But yeah, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.