Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

[Developereo]

Of course the old guard won't allow the newcomer to jeopardize their power grip in the government, a few senator from Independent party represented in US senate or congress can't and won't make any impact on the government policy. They are too few and far between to make any significant change in the US government. All Independent senator or congress end up voting on the side of the Republican or the Democrat.

It's worse than that. Even within the two parties, if one of their own goes off-script, they will be chastised and dumped by their own party. Both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul can attest to that. Both of them received more hate from "their own" party than they did from anyone else.

The political process at the national level is utterly dominated by the two parties, and this works just fine for the elite puppeteers. It's a lot easier to keep track of two avenues -- and keep them in your pocket -- than to watch out for random interlopers all over the place.

 

[sincity]

It's worse than that. Even within the two parties, if one of their own goes off-script, they will be chastised and dumped by their own party. Both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul can attest to that. Both of them received more hate from "their own" party than they did from anyone else.

The political process at the national level is utterly dominated by the two parties, and this works just fine for the elite puppeteers. It's a lot easier to keep track of two avenues -- and keep them in your pocket -- than to watch out for random interlopers all over the place.

Ralpgh Nader and Ron Paul made alot of sense in their political debate but since both not follow the script of the major party on both side, both shunted by the US media and rarely for the US population to hear from their polical point of view.

 

[Developereo]

The question is, what political system is working better? Perhaps only small, rather ethnically uniform, countries like the Scandinavian ones?

There is no question that the US is one of the best examples of large scale democracy in action. The system may work 'better' in smaller, homogenous countries like Iceland or Finland, but that experience would not be generally applicable around the world.

The US is an interesting test bed because it has strong institutions to safeguard democracy, and it also has the most amount of money and power floating around to subvert the process.

 

[gambit]

Your hallucinations about what other people know or don't know may be a source of amusement, but they do nothing to further your arguments.

On the contrary, it does. It exposed the ignorance that you imputed on others.

This is a pattern with you: every time you get cornered, you start imagining things and respond to your own fabrications.

Your argument about campaign contributions was easily refuted because YOU haven't the faintest clue about how political influence peddling works in the real world. Once again, my argument here is about influence. Influence can be exerted in a thousand different ways, quite apart from direct campaign contributions. Only the most naive would believe that campaign contributions are the be-all and end-all of influence peddling.

I know more about the US political process than you will know in ten lifetimes. Already, you have demonstrated scant understanding of the issue being debated. That's why you keep going in circles, deliberately conflating my statements and -- the ultimate desperation -- coming up with wild hallucinatory statements about what I said or wrote.

Fine...Then provide a solution about said 'influence'.

We can put aside campaign contributions for now. You pointed out how 'the rich' and 'the elites' can field disproportionate influence, in their favor, compare to the ordinary citizenry. Fair enough criticism. But while I do not know about your part of the world, I do know that in my country, we do not hire engineers just so they can stand around the plant bitching and moaning about how this is wrong, that is inefficient, these do not belong, etc...etc...No, we hire engineers so they can find solutions to the problems and inefficiencies they exposed.

You may not live in the US, but if you dare to venture into an intellectual discussion about US, then you should have the same intellectual boldness to provide solutions, even if at the very least those solutions do not descend from the abstract.

So again...

Question: Would YOU limit the free speech right and freedom of anyone based upon a level of wealth in order to discourage, if not prevent, corruption of the democratic process you allegedly hold so dear for US ?

So far in this debate, we see nothing but bitching and moaning from you and your friend. And you are telling me that you know more about American politics than I do ?

EVERY single time you start attacking posters instead of debating specifics, you exude desperation.

No...More like amusement.

And where did I deny that third party candidates can get elected at the state level?

Never said you 'deny' anything.

It is more amusing that you can say this: '...but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level.' when you claimed to know more than me about American politics. Your statement dishonestly implied that somehow there is a structural barrier created by law or the default 'the rich' when the truth is more basic.

Why do I need to know a reason why? facts are proof no other party dominate US political landscapte in the US other than Republican and Democrat. Since you doubt my knowledge on US political landscape then you can answer the question you posted to me so we all can learn from your knowledge in political science.

The US electoral system is based upon 'first past the post'. Those are keywords for you to search and learn. But the core of any FPTP system is that FPTP tends to favor two-party politics. The US is not 'proportional representation', more keyword search for you, the way most European legislative bodies are. The PR system naturally encourages multi-party politics.

Now leave the discussion and do your assigned homework, kid.

 

[sincity]

On the contrary, it does. It exposed the ignorance that you imputed on others.


Fine...Then provide a solution about said 'influence'.

We can put aside campaign contributions for now. You pointed out how 'the rich' and 'the elites' can field disproportionate influence, in their favor, compare to the ordinary citizenry. Fair enough criticism. But while I do not know about your part of the world, I do know that in my country, we do not hire engineers just so they can stand around the plant bitching and moaning about how this is wrong, that is inefficient, these do not belong, etc...etc...No, we hire engineers so they can find solutions to the problems and inefficiencies they exposed.

You may not live in the US, but if you dare to venture into an intellectual discussion about US, then you should have the same intellectual boldness to provide solutions, even if at the very least those solutions do not descend from the abstract.

So again...

Question: Would YOU limit the free speech right and freedom of anyone based upon a level of wealth in order to discourage, if not prevent, corruption of the democratic process you allegedly hold so dear for US ?

So far in this debate, we see nothing but bitching and moaning from you and your friend. And you are telling me that you know more about American politics than I do ?


No...More like amusement.


Never said you 'deny' anything.

It is more amusing that you can say this: '...but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level.' when you claimed to know more than me about American politics. Your statement dishonestly implied that somehow there is a structural barrier created by law or the default 'the rich' when the truth is more basic.


The US electoral system is based upon 'first past the post'. Those are keywords for you to search and learn. But the core of any FPTP system is that FPTP tends to favor two-party politics. The US is not 'proportional representation', more keyword search for you, the way most European legislative bodies are. The PR system naturally encourages multi-party politics.

Now leave the discussion and do your assigned homework, kid.

Turn out you don't know jack shit. Why would I want to google search for the answer to your own original question you posted? I thought you are expert on everything, nothing you don't have the answer for, stop pretend you're the jack of all trade and master of none.

Cluessless but pretend to know it all.

Enter the keyword in the google search engine then become an expert.

 

[gambit]

Turn out you don't know jack shit. Why would I want to google search for the answer to your own original question you posted? I thought you are expert on everything, nothing you don't have the answer for, stop pretend you're the jack of all trade and master of none.

Cluessless but pretend to know it all.

Enter the keyword in the google search engine then become an expert.

I can see now that you are one of those modern day spoiled brats who wants everything to be handed to him.

First-past-the-post voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A first-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) election is one that is won by the candidate receiving more votes than any other(s). It is a common, but not universal, feature of electoral systems with single-member legislative districts, and generally results over time with a two-party competition.

You get an F.

Next homework assignment...Now that you know that the American electoral system tends to favor two-party politics, find out the mechanics of why.

 

[sincity]

I can see now that you are one of those modern day spoiled brats who wants everything to be handed to him.

First-past-the-post voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You get an F.

Next homework assignment...Now that you know that the American electoral system tends to favor two-party politics, find out the mechanics of why.

First of all, I'm not interest in US politic, have the aspiration to become a politician or major in political science. I won't waste my time learning the political process in the US political system because of my voting right, I just posted there isn't other party that hold the presidential posistion in the history of US government. Fact there no more than 5 senator or congressmen are the representive of Independent party in the US that just proved both Democrat and Republican party dominated the political landscape in the US. Both party already have the stronghold on with their power base in the US population. No other party have the mean to replace either party in the US politic. Just a common sense, I don't need to google to understand why 3rd party can and never will make an encroachment into US political system.

 

[Developereo]

On the contrary, it does. It exposed the ignorance that you imputed on others.

Only in your desperation-fueled hallucinations!

Show the readers exactly which statement I made about campaign contributions which was false.

Remember, show us what I actually wrote, not what you imagined in your hallucinations.

Fine...Then provide a solution about said 'influence'.

The first step is to acknowledge there is a problem. Seven pages of you guys throwing a 'you hate our freedoms' tantrum and personal attacks shows that even that step is far from accomplished.

Question: Would YOU limit the free speech right and freedom of anyone based upon a level of wealth in order to discourage, if not prevent, corruption of the democratic process you allegedly hold so dear for US ?

Once again, your hallucinations are getting the better of you.

No one is advocating restricting anyone's right to free speech. This is one of your desperate tactics to shout 'free speech' to try and sound knowledgeable about the subject when, in fact, you are more clueless than a PoliSci freshman at a community college.

So far in this debate, we see nothing but bitching and moaning from you and your friend. And you are telling me that you know more about American politics than I do ?

More "you hate our freedoms" tantrums. Keep up the entertainment.

It is more amusing that you can say this: '...but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level.' when you claimed to know more than me about American politics. Your statement dishonestly implied that somehow there is a structural barrier created by law or the default 'the rich' when the truth is more basic.

Once again, I am not responsible for your hallucinations or misreading of the English language. The phrase "choke-hold" has no connotations whatsoever of legal barriers -- except for those who imagine it out of thin air.

 

[gambit]

No one is advocating restricting anyone's right to free speech. This is one of your desperate tactics to shout 'free speech' to try and sound knowledgeable about the subject when, in fact, you are more clueless than a PoliSci freshman at a community college.

Right...So basically, the only thing you know how to do is bitch and moan. No courage to answer a simple question but plenty of gall to question others' problems.

 

[Developereo]

Right...So basically, the only thing you know how to do is bitch and moan. No courage to answer a simple question but plenty of gall to question others' problems.

It's called exploration and analysis of a situation. That is what the Princeton study did. That is what discussions in the political science space do.

If you perceive that as a "you hate our freedoms" bitching and moaning, then so be it.

 

[gambit]

It's called exploration and analysis of a situation. That is what the Princeton study did. That is what discussions in the political science space do.

If you perceive that as a "you hate our freedoms" bitching and moaning, then so be it.

I call it being intellectually half assed and I do not care who does it, be it an anonymous person on the Internet or a well known institution like Princeton. It is even more laughable since it comes from outside the US where the critics lives in dictatorships where bullets are the normal method of persuasion.

 

[Developereo]

It is even more laughable since it comes from outside the US where the critics lives in dictatorships where bullets are the normal method of persuasion.

Ah yes.
Everyone "hates your freedoms".

PS. Oops. Today I ordered "french fries" instead of "freedom fries". Uh oh!

 

[VCheng]

There is no question that the US is one of the best examples of large scale democracy in action. The system may work 'better' in smaller, homogenous countries like Iceland or Finland, but that experience would not be generally applicable around the world.

The US is an interesting test bed because it has strong institutions to safeguard democracy, and it also has the most amount of money and power floating around to subvert the process.

As a "test bed", wouldn't you agree that the results speak for themselves, so far? The strong safeguards have not yet allowed any large scale subversion by all the money floating around, have they not?

 

[Developereo]

As a "test bed", wouldn't you agree that the results speak for themselves, so far? The strong safeguards have not yet allowed any large scale subversion by all the money floating around, have they not?

As my first sentence in that quote affirms, the US is one of the best examples of a functioning large scale democracy, warts and all.

As for your second point about "large scale subversion", that's a subjective assessment. You will get different answers depending on to whom you speak. People who feel strongly about illegal immigration might feel that such subversion has occurred. Ditto for people who feel strongly about the environmental impact of oil drilling or America's involvement in wars.

There is no objective answer to your question.

 

[VCheng]

As my first sentence in that quote affirms, the US is one of the best examples of a functioning large scale democracy, warts and all.

As for your second point about "large scale subversion", that's a subjective assessment. You will get different answers depending on to whom you speak. People who feel strongly about illegal immigration might feel that such subversion has occurred. Ditto for people who feel strongly about the environmental impact of oil drilling or America's involvement in wars.

There is no objective answer to your question.

If using illegal immigration or oil drilling or fracking as issues to discuss whether any subversion has occurred or not, common to all of them is a vigorous debate at all levels of the system to determine the best way forward in keeping with the wishes of the people. For example, Arizona has toughened up its law for immigrants, and New York has a moratorium on fracking.