Let's take a country sample: USA (merely because of its popularity). Is there anything in common between republicans and democrats? With all the fuss of election, what if the country split into two? Let say it splits into USA-R and USA-D, with R and D refers to republican and democratic, respectively. Imagine the benefit: No fuss of election, endless debate, campaign, lobbying, etc. People in both countries (USA-R and USA-D) can run their own foreign policy, economic policy, taxing, healthcare system, education system, etc. They can each have their own president, goverment, system who represent both best. Each countries will be responsible for their own act, miserable war, etc, no one blame each other. Each citizen can move freely to the other country when their political belief switch, for example if the other side is proven to be better in long-term Hence each country will compete to their best so that they are better than the other half. Note: this is just a free thought. Sorry if similar thread has probably been created elsewhere. Your thoughts?
They wouldnt have a clue what to do without the other being a scapegoat Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But that wouldn't be democracy! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh wait, your a republic, good plan Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Exactly. Seems to me that current campaign merely just to blame how bad is the other. Democrat: look at where the republican took us after 8 years, hence you should vote for me. Republican: democratic leader is paling (sp?) with terrorist, hence you should vote for me. :shrug:
But democracy also means equal representation and freedom. In this current affair, one will lose to the other, and the other who win will proceed their own agenda. I'm not a republican, in fact I am not even an American Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Before you consider advocating such a proposal, ask yourself ...where would we split it? And what to do with a D who happens to live in R country? Or vice versa? Kick 'em out? Force them to change sides? Shoot 'em? Baron Max
Hi, Baron Max, welcome back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is rather technical aspect. Of course everything takes time and money, but one can always make comparison as to whether it is more beneficial in the long run compared to the time, money, and energy that has to be spent in regular election. One can make imaginary administrative border, let say, the country is divided into two vertically (vertical according to 2D map), left wing stay on left side, right wing on right side Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. People are free to be in left or right side so long they are American, but those who live in republican side will have the USA-R system (foreign policy, economic policy, healthcare, education, etc according to the republican agenda), and so does the one who live in democratic side. They are applied tax according to each system, they both have their own government, but they aren't really foreigner to each other. Just like in Europe where the union consist of many countries but they are under the same umbrella (European Union). No more endless debate, campaign, different major votes in senate level, etc. Everybody happy, they can live in the system that they like. They still can trade with each other and so on. Just like a European Union. :shrug:
There is some overlap of interests, but if the country split, then each half would divide again. There would be more liberal Democrats (Kucinich) and more conservative Democrats (Clinton). There would be more centrist Republicans, and more Neo-Con ones, and they would compete against each other.
Humans form communities and individual identities within those communities. No matter how many times you divided the USA or any country, people within that community will inevitably come to different conclusions as to how things should be done. Were we to divide the USA in half, giving the western half to the Republicans, the people in that half would inevitably come across something that they don't agree on. As time goes by, those people will begin to form political groups who have different ideas as to how to run everyday things like schools, roads, prisons and medicine. Dividing up a nation would not be a good idea and would never solve the everyday issues we have before us. ~String
I realized that perhaps my idea isn't practical. My thought was, why not accomodating both parties by power sharing so that no tiring and costly process anymore. It's like... there is one cake, and everytime people have to fight over who get the cake. Why not just share the cake and be done with it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The thing is, this kind of process (presidential election) always take long (like one year in advance), and it has to happen every 4 years. That means, your overall productivity is reduced by 25%. A lot of time, money, energy, etc, wasted. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see (from an observer point of view).
"These parties have offered candidates in recent elections, but did not in 2004, and they do not have ballot status in enough states in 2008 to win the presidency. Some do not have presidential candidates, but for other offices only. This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_States#Parties_in_presidential_contention # America First Party (2002) # Boston Tea Party (2006) # Centrist Party (United States) (2006) # Independence Party of America (2007) # Jefferson Republican Party (2006) # Moderate Party (2006) # Marijuana Party (2002) # Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004) # Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California # Prohibition Party (1867) # Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party" # Socialist Equality Party (1953) # Socialist Party USA (1973) # Socialist Workers Party (1938) # United States Pacifist Party (1983) # Workers World Party (1959) # Working Families Party (1998) No one mentioned that there is more parties than the two, thats how deep the two party system has been installed in peoples mind, they dont even think about other possibilities and babbling something about wasted votes LOL well, if the two keep on shitting on you what does it matter then if you waste your vote... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All the little ones should unite to form the THE THIRD PARTY Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, sure, I mean, what's the difference among this three, for example: # Socialist Workers Party (1938) # Workers World Party (1959) # Working Families Party (1998) They'd better minimize the difference and just blend into 'Worker Party' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
-So right, that is just wasting resources, like term socialist means much anymore, and whats with the family thing, some moral statement or what, you are not in the family so stay out, lol, and the world party overwhelmingly wants to cover the workers problems of the whole planet or what, heh.
Hello, BlueMoose, sorry to make you worried, I am alright. And thanks, that's very kind of you for asking! I'll change my avatar and user title soon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have fun and see you around later/tomorrow. your friend, ~ Inzomnia
-Pheew, thanks, that kitten and ducks do look so much better Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
