22nd amendment to be repealed?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,08:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">does voting limit reduction cause demise of democracy? note that democracy is having ppl rule the gov't. so as long as ppl can direct gov't's path with their vote, while preserving their rights, democracy is preserved.<span id='postcolor'>

That's republicanism, not democracy. And do you mean "voting term limit reduction" or a limit on who can vote? <span id='postcolor'>

no that's democracy. republicanism has more to do with central gov't, like presidency. democracy's definition is that ppl rule the politics. republicanism is defined as "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."(shamelessly copied from dictionary.com)

the requisite is that "supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." so ppl has to vote, which means it is a subset of democracy. democracy is defined as "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."(again shamelessly copied from above). so democracy envelopes republicanism.

and when i said voting limit, i should have said "minimum votes needed to pass a bill"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By lowering the requirements to pass a law in the Senate to 49 votes would mean that we would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority, but rather the tyranny of the minority. It's just as bad and capable of as much evil, if not more. <span id='postcolor'>

that's what I said in my explanation. and even in current situation, special interest groups can budge their head in and get their interest reflected, due to lack of interest in politics by common ppl and lack of ability to.(let's be honest, i dont spend 24 hrs reading what bill wants to be on the floor)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I must confess something - I do not belive that my vote counts. Don't get me wrong, I do indeed vote, but I don't think it matters in the end. Better candidates do not win office - better financed candidates win. <span id='postcolor'>

indeed said truth of how material wealth can overcome some problems, if there are no major difference in preference of candidates. remember that little Texan named Ross Perot? he did have good finance and was able to wedge his way in. but my core basic belief is that my vote, although only one of 230 million, still counts.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,12:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">does voting limit reduction cause demise of democracy? note that democracy is having ppl rule the gov't. so as long as ppl can direct gov't's path with their vote, while preserving their rights, democracy is preserved.<span id='postcolor'>

So why didn't they propose this bill before they lost the majority in the house and senate?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what is the effect of lowering the bar? definitely not the demise of the democracy. by lowering the limit, more ppl can get their agenda passed compared to before. since the bar to get it passed is lower, a bill that would not have passed since it only got 49 votes of support in a system where 51 votes would be needed, can be passed, if voting limit falls to 33 votes or more.<span id='postcolor'>

Granted, it isn't exactly the fall of democracy, but lets look at a few things. Firstly, who's proposing the resolution? The democrats, the people who had just lost the majority in both the house, and the senate. Before, they could get a 2/3rds majority much easier than they could now, so they didn't care about it. Now they have to work much harder to pass a bill, so they care about it and want to change it so they can pass bills easier. Is this the furtherment of democracy or democrats struggling to retain power?

Second, is passing lots of bills a good thing? Considering the amount of money involved in today's politics and how easilly a senator's or representative's vote can be swayed, I think it's much safer to have a 2/3rd majority instead of a 1/2. Less BS will get through the system.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why didn't they propose this bill before they lost the majority in the house and senate?<span id='postcolor'>

cause it goes both ways. as much as one side can benefit, the otherside can too. they can blow more blows to each other.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Firstly, who's proposing the resolution? The democrats, the people who had just lost the majority in both the house, and the senate. Before, they could get a 2/3rds majority much easier than they could now, so they didn't care about it. Now they have to work much harder to pass a bill, so they care about it and want to change it so they can pass bills easier.<span id='postcolor'>

not really. after first 2 yrs into Clinton's admin, republicans were the ones who were majority all the way until now.(it still is). the problem that democrats faced was that republicans practically filibustered almost eveything with most absurd reasons, and blocked pretty much everything that did not fit Republican's taste.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this the furtherment of democracy or democrats struggling to retain power?<span id='postcolor'>

as same as Republicans: struggling to retain power

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second, is passing lots of bills a good thing? Considering the amount of money involved in today's politics and how easilly a senator's or representative's vote can be swayed, I think it's much safer to have a 2/3rd majority instead of a 1/2. Less BS will get through the system.

<span id='postcolor'>

indeed this is the reason why if there are any attempts to alter majority level, it will not go through. read Schoeler's post above. it's a tedious process.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,08:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I must confess something - I do not belive that my vote counts.<span id='postcolor'>

You live in Florida?

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 12 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HJ Res 11\

Dictatorship on it way? What purpose would this serve? None other than an ongoing ruling Executive Branch possibly.

EDIT: Good thing is it has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee since Jan. 7th.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, if there's no limit to terms, maybe they can bring back Clinton.

I'd take Clinton lover Bush aaaaaaaaaaaaanyday.

[peanuckle_00 0]

All I want to know is what is the possibility that a very bad man could be president for a long time? That's something I'll be taking into consideration before I address the issue any further.

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reagan Tried it and no dice, and he was a MUCH more popular, influential, and charismatic president than BOTH the bushes combined.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't Reagan resign after watergate.  And after someone attempted to assassinate him?      j/k<span id='postcolor'>

I think you need a quick history lesson:

It was Nixon who resigned after Watergate, Reagan never resigned, he reached his term limit thats why he tried to get it changed.

But Still:

Never Gonna Happen.

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 12 2003,10:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 12 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HJ Res 11\

Dictatorship on it way? What purpose would this serve? None other than an ongoing ruling Executive Branch possibly.

EDIT: Good thing is it has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee since Jan. 7th.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, if there's no limit to terms, maybe they can bring back Clinton.

I'd take Clinton lover Bush aaaaaaaaaaaaanyday.<span id='postcolor'>

Bill Clinton is free to run for president again if he wants, After being a president for 8 years you must wait 4 before you may run again.

[dayglow 2]

USA, just look north and see what happens when someone stays in power too long My god, imagine if Canada had limited terms, sigh

COLINMAN

[Guest]

In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM.

So we have no limit on terms served. It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now.

Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,18:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM.

So we have no limit on terms served.  It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now.

Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role <span id='postcolor'>

Are there restrictions on campaign financing in Sweden?  Or are your leaders and representatives usually supported by a lot of personal and/or corporate wealth, as in the USA.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 12 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are there restrictions on campaign financing in Sweden?  Or are your leaders and representatives usually supported by a lot of personal and/or corporate wealth, as in the USA.<span id='postcolor'>

Lobbying = bribery by Swedish law. We have very very strict rules when it comes to that. Campaigns are funded by the governement, not by corporations nor individuals.

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,12:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 12 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are there restrictions on campaign financing in Sweden?  Or are your leaders and representatives usually supported by a lot of personal and/or corporate wealth, as in the USA.<span id='postcolor'>

Lobbying = bribery by Swedish law. We have very very strict rules when it comes to that. Campaigns are funded by the governement, not  by corporations nor individuals.<span id='postcolor'>

Something i really dislike about the US system

It's too easy to buy elections, its done much more than people think in the lower echelons of govt.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM.

So we have no limit on terms served.  It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now.

Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a parliamentary democracy, Denoir?

And I seem to recall that the British system works so that a Parlimentarian (do the English call them Commoners and Lords or what?) representing Liverpool, for example, doesn't have to be from Liverpool. That the person's party picks and chooses what region he will represent. Thus, someone living in London can be put on the ballot for Nottingham because that's where the party wants him to run.

Am I wrong? I seem to remember this being the case from my comparative international politics class. Is it the same in Sweden, or are people representing Gottenborg (sp?) actaully required to have residency there?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't that a parliamentary democracy, Denoir?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that's probably the English name for it I just made a direct translation of the Swedish term "representativ demokrati".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden, or are people representing Gottenborg (sp?) actaully required to have residency there?<span id='postcolor'>

No, the representatives in parliament are not in any way connected to any geographical areas. They don't in any way represent parts of Sweden. The difference between the British system and the Swedish is also that we have a one-chamber parliamnet, while they have a two-chamber system.

[hellfish6 7]

Aha... very interesting. Thanks.

If the representatives don't in any way represent parts of Sweden, how do the people get represented then? Is it strictly by party? Like the Greens stand for one thing, so you vote for them? How do local interests get represented at the national level?

[Othin 0]

This is old news, Mr. Serrano has tried to do this before..

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c10683AUh2::

He definately has a "broad" focus...

To award a congressional gold medal to Francis Albert Sinatra

Baseball Diplomacy Act

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the representatives don't in any way represent parts of Sweden, how do the people get represented then? Is it strictly by party? Like the Greens stand for one thing, so you vote for them? How do local interests get represented at the national level?<span id='postcolor'>

It's strictly by party. You chose a voting-paper that belongs to a party. On it is a list of candidates which you can but don't have to select. By the names of the candidates is their age, profession and where they are from.

Local interests don't get represented at the national level. In the parliament only general national matters are handled.

At local level it's a bit more complicated. We have a dual local goverenment which is also elected. The local questions are handled through these provincial councils.

[black__bird 0]

"Bill Clinton is free to run for president again if he wants, After being a president for 8 years you must wait 4 before you may run again."

Not entirely accurate. can he run again yes, but he if re-elected would only fill the term for 2 years then his VP takes over and he can never run again. US presidency terms are 4 years and you can be a president for a max of 10 years this was made incase a POTUS left office for some reason and his VP took over, but it still makes it so the Bill Clinton is free to run for president again if he wants, After being a president for 8 years you must wait 4 before you may run again. VP can run for up to 2 terms if he took office after 2 years as the VP. just because you were president for 8years and then took 4 years off doesnt mean you are free to be elected for another 4-8 years.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">cause it goes both ways. as much as one side can benefit, the otherside can too. they can blow more blows to each other.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but that doesn't explain why they didn't do this before they lost the majority.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">not really. after first 2 yrs into Clinton's admin, republicans were the ones who were majority all the way until now.(it still is). the problem that democrats faced was that republicans practically filibustered almost eveything with most absurd reasons, and blocked pretty much everything that did not fit Republican's taste.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, it's our job.

The Republicans aren't the only ones filabustering things for moronic reasons, just so you know.

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that whichever political party does not hold the majority of seats in congress or the house is going to do everything it can to get it's way, including fighting dirty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as same as Republicans: struggling to retain power<span id='postcolor'>

But the republicans have the power now. We have the presidency, and the majority in the senate and the house. Now the democrats don't, so they're trying to make it easier for them to do what they want, and they're wiping their feet on the constitution while they're at it.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 12 2003,07:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, I hate to be a stickler for detail, but the U.S. is neither a true democracy, nor a true republic.  It is a representative democracy, a hybrid.  Though calling it a republic is closer to the truth than calling it a democracy.  Read Robert Dahl's famous book, "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" for more on this.  It's required reading in a lot of Universities for Political Science majors.<span id='postcolor'>

Unsurprisingly, none of my friends attending Canadian Universities have heard of this book.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA, just look north and see what happens when someone stays in power too long My god, imagine if Canada had limited terms, sigh

COLINMAN

<span id='postcolor'>

I would like an election every four years, but not a limit to how many times a candidate can run consecutively.

Besides, generally, PMs take the hint; if their popularity is dropping rapidly, they tend to bow out. However, corruption is still a problem.

Still, lately, I haven't really cared that Chretien is still running the country, as I realise that Provincially (I live in B.C.) it doesn't matter who the Premier is. It really doesn't. Every Premier @#$%s us over worse than the last one. This priovince is screwed. And Provincially, none of the PM candidates speak to me at all. I really have no idea who I'd vote for anymore.

I used to be a stingent Liberal Supporter, but any faith I had with them is utterly gone.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, that's probably the English name for it I just made a direct translation of the Swedish term "representativ demokrati".<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't this called "parliamentarism" ? - at least it is in Norway!

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM.

So we have no limit on terms served.  It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now.

Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a parliamentary democracy, Denoir?

And I seem to recall that the British system works so that a Parlimentarian (do the English call them Commoners and Lords or what?) representing Liverpool, for example, doesn't have to be from Liverpool. That the person's party picks and chooses what region he will represent. Thus, someone living in London can be put on the ballot for Nottingham because that's where the party wants him to run.

Am I wrong? I seem to remember this being the case from my comparative international politics class. Is it the same in Sweden, or are people representing Gottenborg (sp?) actaully required to have residency there?<span id='postcolor'>

It is indeed a parliamentary system. The reason the U.S. is a hybrid, and not a representative democracy is because of the electoral college.

[brgnorway 0]

Hmm.....the essence of parliamentarism is that the power is consentrated in the national assembly (parliament) and not in the cabinet. The cabinet is formed out of a majority support in the parliament. This is nessecarily not a result of the majority of votes, but of negotiations about the national budget and policy of certain areas of interests.

The most crucial difference between pure parliamentarism and other systems (like in the US) is that the cabinet risk losing the support of the national asembly by vote of confidence.

In US the government means 4 years no matter what - unless it can be proved that the government has acted in a criminal way.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In straight-up political theory, there are two types of representatives.

1 - the representative who acts exactly in accordance with the majority opinion of his/her constituency.

2 - the representative who acts according to his or her own beliefs, doing this based on the logic that he or she was elected based on his or her own moral values and wisdom, even if it does not always coincide with the views, beliefs and morals of the body politic.

<span id='postcolor'>

In Canada there is a #3.....

3 - Vote the way the PM wants you to, or get booted out of caucus and not be allowed to run under the party name ever again.

This happened just a few weeks ago when the PM decided to make the issue of gun registry funding a 'vote of confidence'. In effect, every single party member had to 'toe the line', or else.

Tyler