Thank God!

Sorry, when a product of a European system talks the short comings of our poltiical process, it is time to go to sleep. Especially ever since the EU's formation.

Yes, there should be. What if the pledger doesn't believe in (a) God? Doesn't that make it a null pledge? Or forcing someone to swear by something he doesn't have a belief in? Or somesuch other unconstitutional stuff?

RobG

The original version of the pledge was better in my own opinion. "I pledge alligance to flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

One man (or woman, in these PC days), ONE VOTE! He who gets the most votes wins. That is the only sure way to have a popular, democratic voting process work as it should. I acknowledge that most Federal govts are a little more complicated than that, but that should be the basis. And having a cap on the amount of time, money and BS that can be spent in promoting yourself as a candidate. That gives the marginal, not-as-rich-as-the-big-business-supported-suckholes candidates an even chance. This would take a major change in policy. It would have to be voted in by the sitting govt. It will never happen. I can dream, I suppose...

RobG

Hmmm, a return to the feudal system. What the heck, it might work. What about the unemployed? And non-working mothers? And Bill Gates - wouldn't want to miss his vote, would we? A lot of people died to open the vote up to all who want to participate.

RobG

Is Dubya playing it? Or is it just the hand up his bum making him dance?

RobG Who has lived under a puppet govt since Li'l Johnnie was 'elected'.

It's a bit like the 'Free World' then... But I guess we can hide behind the bush when it all gets too rough. Dubya scares me. How will he know it's time to leave the White House, when he possibly can't count to four?

RobG

What? John Howard took office via a military coup?

Little Johnnie was the best of a bad bunch. In these uncertain times, the small fact that he hasn't *completely* screwed up this place is the only reason he got back in. People don't like change when the future is bleak. That, and the preference votes. If we could get rid of preferences, this would be a happier place.

RobG

"Rob Grinberg" wrote

Excellent!

Kevin

...yeah...let's hope he scares a LOT of people...like Reagan did...

Since this in not directly related to the election, I am not breaking my promise by commenting here

That's good, real good.

Wrong again. It's a proven fact that he can certainly count to at least eight. That's how many years he's going to be in the White House so....get used to it.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

There is a run-off system called IRV (Instant Run-off Voting), where the voter lists his/her candidate choices in preference order. If no candidate gets a clear majority "the lowest polling candidate is eliminated in each round until someone recieves the majority vote." See these sites for better descriptions:

Ron,

Technically, we are a "Representative Democracy".

Greg,

Actually, Louisiana has what is called an "open primary" - one in which all candidates who qualify can run regardless of party affiliation. The system has its pros and cons. This allows for a greater mixture of candidates who are not bound to tow any party line to obtain a coveted party nomination. The system does allow for more extreme candidates to get into a runoff if their followers vote in a large enough block to approach a plurality, but by and large the system rewards more moderate candidates which can cross ideological lines of the major parties & relevant political factions to garner a majority of the vote.

Our last gubernatorial election was between a moderate Republican 30- something year old Rhodes Scholar of (Asian) Indian descent and a moderate Democrat 60-something year old Cajun grandmother. Stereotypes aside, both were highly qualified and equally equipped to govern. Either winner would have been a first for the state (actually for most states) - a governor "of color" or a woman.

Then what *would* you do? ISTM that you think we shouldn't bother to fight them because there's no way to know when we've won. Or am I reading you wrong?

The US hasn't formally declared war on anybody since WWII. Maybe that's part of the reason we tend to leave things unfinished since then.

Then how can it be 'common sense'? If it doesn't work it's nonsense.

That's fine for a pure democracy. I don't know of any except perhaps Switzerland, which seems to come fairly close.

You're in favor of placing limits on free speech?

Actually, he can count all the way to 59,459,765. So far....