The US Constitution was written so that anyone could run the government --preferably, if said by it's omission, by the wealthy, highly educated and most good willed: the REAL elite.

Professional congressman and women - this is no exagerration, as I have worked as an attorney in the US government and the NYC Corporation Counsel, has no less than DESTROYED THE COUNTRY.

How? Representative X pays 2 million dollars to land a job that pays 200k. Then, congressman X is lobbied and BOUGHT AND OWNED by the booze lobby, the reefer madness lobby (again, the kennedys and their booze-fortune dirty money), and a 4 million dollar bribe causes:
1) American obesity through mass alcoholism and fake be...

The US Constitution was written so that anyone could run the government --preferably, if said by it's omission, by the wealthy, highly educated and most good willed: the REAL elite.

Professional congressman and women - this is no exagerration, as I have worked as an attorney in the US government and the NYC Corporation Counsel, has no less than DESTROYED THE COUNTRY.

How? Representative X pays 2 million dollars to land a job that pays 200k. Then, congressman X is lobbied and BOUGHT AND OWNED by the booze lobby, the reefer madness lobby (again, the kennedys and their booze-fortune dirty money), and a 4 million dollar bribe causes:
1) American obesity through mass alcoholism and fake beer (like Jay-Z drinks that piss-water he hawks on tv, not that the CIA didn't extort him into making these [ads];
2) American hypocrisy as the neighbor who was shooting at the squirrels in my backyard with a 357 magnum gets no jail time while my friend who was listening to how the US was on DEAD RED TERRORIST ALERT was waiting for the bombs to fall, lit a J in his backyard - phd, wife, 3 kids, town council, teaches pro bono, never an arrest - serves a year in jail in the biggest fraud in my lifetime, the "war on drugs," fought by people WHO ALREADY HAVE FULL ACCESS TO ALL THE DRUGS THEY WANT;
3) 3-100. We all know the hypocrisy has reached a critical mass. It is time for revenge on bullies, cowards and mass-hypocrites.

/river cc newman/

The problem is breaking the dynasties, both the Republican ones, and the Democratic ones. And to do that, you need to educate voters. You need to teach people to not vote for name recognition — "Oh, he's a Kennedy; he'll be progressive!". People don't inherit the beliefs of their parents, or their relatives. While their beliefs may help shape the beliefs of each new generation within a dynasty, it doesn't mean that they're the same. Their beliefs could be completely opposite, because they've seen nothing but bad come from their parents'/grandparents' beliefs. A corollary to the fact that just because Obama's former paster is a racist, it doesn't mean that he is one, too, most people have the...

The problem is breaking the dynasties, both the Republican ones, and the Democratic ones. And to do that, you need to educate voters. You need to teach people to not vote for name recognition — "Oh, he's a Kennedy; he'll be progressive!". People don't inherit the beliefs of their parents, or their relatives. While their beliefs may help shape the beliefs of each new generation within a dynasty, it doesn't mean that they're the same. Their beliefs could be completely opposite, because they've seen nothing but bad come from their parents'/grandparents' beliefs. A corollary to the fact that just because Obama's former paster is a racist, it doesn't mean that he is one, too, most people have their own minds. They may share a number of beliefs with the people they share their lives with, but think about it; is there really anyone in your life who agrees with you about absolutely everything you think? I doubt it.

So, just as it's ridiculous and asinine to think that Obama's past association with Wright makes him a racist, it's equally ridiculous and asinine to think that every Kennedy, every Bush, is going to go with the "family trend"

Hopefully, one of the first things President Obama will do is start an initiative to get the states to include much more civics and political topics to their education syllabus. Raise kids that know better than to buy campaign bullshit and name recognition.

If you have a "winner takes all" kind of system, like in America, you had better make pretty sure, that your leader knows what's he's doing.

In a parliamentary system like we have, even laymen or "ordinary" people have a place, because even if they turn out to be "dumb", they only have so much to say. Power is shared. We have lawyers. CEO's, farmers, nurses, teachers, professors, all kinds of people in our government. A mixed picking of the population. You don't HAVE to be a big shot politician OR be rich to have good ideas. (Ghandi, Mother Teresa etc)

On a side note: The Danes have a fabulous sense of humour and a few years back, we "teased" the system, by voting in a stand-up comedian (...

If you have a "winner takes all" kind of system, like in America, you had better make pretty sure, that your leader knows what's he's doing.

In a parliamentary system like we have, even laymen or "ordinary" people have a place, because even if they turn out to be "dumb", they only have so much to say. Power is shared. We have lawyers. CEO's, farmers, nurses, teachers, professors, all kinds of people in our government. A mixed picking of the population. You don't HAVE to be a big shot politician OR be rich to have good ideas. (Ghandi, Mother Teresa etc)

On a side note: The Danes have a fabulous sense of humour and a few years back, we "teased" the system, by voting in a stand-up comedian (Hausgaard) who promised us better weather and the wind in our backs at all times. Hahahaha!! And he got a seat! *LOL* Oh lordy, that was so much fun. He DID help make our bike ways better and some other stuff, but we had made our point (that our gov was not giving us what we wanted at the time) and this move humbled them and made them shape up.

No one man has all the power here. It's all about compromise.

It's a "we, the people" thing here. For real, not just empty words. Politicians are like used car salesmen. Lots of fancy talk, but may the buyer beware. The more the government (parliamentarian, mind you) are "people just like us" and not high flying rich oligarchs with NO idea of what the "little people's" lives are like, then it works (here at least.) Also, here the people stick together. We're not polarized, like in America. It's us against the politiicians. Not left vs right. We have a spectrum of choice. We're not at each other's throats and don't waste time fighting each other.

A question. Why is there only two parties to choose from in the US? Are more not allowed? Not valued? Why ...

It's a "we, the people" thing here. For real, not just empty words. Politicians are like used car salesmen. Lots of fancy talk, but may the buyer beware. The more the government (parliamentarian, mind you) are "people just like us" and not high flying rich oligarchs with NO idea of what the "little people's" lives are like, then it works (here at least.) Also, here the people stick together. We're not polarized, like in America. It's us against the politiicians. Not left vs right. We have a spectrum of choice. We're not at each other's throats and don't waste time fighting each other.

A question. Why is there only two parties to choose from in the US? Are more not allowed? Not valued? Why does America not want more choices? Or is it really the media and the elites who actually pick, who you can choose from? That has always puzzled me. The US seems so politically *enslaved* to me..

[i]According to the Nordic opinion creators, the Nordic model is based on a number of common Nordic values such as:

- Equality
- Trust
- Inclusion
- Flexibility
- Respect
- Work ethic
- Aesthetics
- Low power distance

Not only are these values and attitudes of great importance to the way in which society is organised, but also they serve as a platform for a range of business/economic strengths.

For example, the low power distance means that high and low can discuss things together, and great trust means that basically people can count on one another in the Nordic countries – which means that the conditions for cooperation and innovation are particularly good in the Nordic cultures....

According to the Nordic opinion creators, the Nordic model is based on a number of common Nordic values such as:

- Equality
- Trust
- Inclusion
- Flexibility
- Respect
- Work ethic
- Aesthetics
- Low power distance

Not only are these values and attitudes of great importance to the way in which society is organised, but also they serve as a platform for a range of business/economic strengths.

For example, the low power distance means that high and low can discuss things together, and great trust means that basically people can count on one another in the Nordic countries – which means that the conditions for cooperation and innovation are particularly good in the Nordic cultures. This represents an obvious advantage in a global economy where competition is rooted in the quick interchange of ideas and innovation. In other cultures, it can be more difficult for someone of low social rank or position to share thoughts and ideas with a manager of high social rank or position.

http://www.denmarklimited.com/Contents/The+Danish+Model.aspx

I think the "winner-take-all," flaw in American style democracy is a significant point here, also previously mentioned.

I know this is normally a Very Boring topic for most Yanks and takes consideration of how things are done in other countries.

Sorry about this. But Bush would be gone and small (non-elite) voices and opinions would not be silenced but have a fair share of power.

But this election sure has us thinking about a lot of political ideas we'd never expect: like: "What is socialism?" -- so maybe, eventually, some real thought will eventually come around to asking: "Why are all other democratic nations in the world a parliamentary system of democracy?"

Good question.

All of the...

I think the "winner-take-all," flaw in American style democracy is a significant point here, also previously mentioned.

I know this is normally a Very Boring topic for most Yanks and takes consideration of how things are done in other countries.

Sorry about this. But Bush would be gone and small (non-elite) voices and opinions would not be silenced but have a fair share of power.

But this election sure has us thinking about a lot of political ideas we'd never expect: like: "What is socialism?" -- so maybe, eventually, some real thought will eventually come around to asking: "Why are all other democratic nations in the world a parliamentary system of democracy?"

Good question.

All of the other democracies in the world ARE a parliamentary system. As mentioned, with a parliamentary system Bush would have been kicked out long ago. They can "dissolved,' the government, kick out the bad guys they don't like, have new elections in three months or so, elect new guys."

With a parliamentary system those who are not elitist -- the smaller voices and opinions in our society -- would be able to get a fair share of power.

What's a fair share of power?

A fair share of power means that if you get 20% of the vote you get 20% of the Congress.

Instead: winner-take-all, if you get 20% of the vote you get nothing.

Democracy is not suppose to be "winner-take-all," it's suppose to be about representing the views of the people -- not shutting them out just because they can never attain a 51% victory.

Of course we still need and use 51% to make decisions, like everyone else also does -- but that's way different than saying a group must have 51% before they get a voice in government.

Doing it this way would make us a better government and a more true democracy right away.

But, we're doing ok now. Obama is not an elitist; he's a populist. -- a populist and a reformer who believes in listening to all voices: Democrat, Republican or Independent or Other.

@katsteevns - Gads...I don't think I have enough energy to swim ashore and building a new ship might be problematic.

@darkeforce - I've copied and pasted your last few comments, you've explained the critical difference of a parliamentary system better than I.

It seems a very difficult idea to get across to Yanks and how ironic that the third party advocates also brush it off not realizing it's a critical key for them to gain power -- and still encourage us all to go out and waste our vote to 'send a message.'

If I didn't live in Europe, myself, I doubt if it would have clicked in my head how unfair the winner-take-all method of 'undemocracy,' is.

You mention the word 'parliament,' to Am...

@katsteevns - Gads...I don't think I have enough energy to swim ashore and building a new ship might be problematic.

@darkeforce - I've copied and pasted your last few comments, you've explained the critical difference of a parliamentary system better than I.

It seems a very difficult idea to get across to Yanks and how ironic that the third party advocates also brush it off not realizing it's a critical key for them to gain power -- and still encourage us all to go out and waste our vote to 'send a message.'

If I didn't live in Europe, myself, I doubt if it would have clicked in my head how unfair the winner-take-all method of 'undemocracy,' is.

You mention the word 'parliament,' to Americans and they seem to hit the 'snooze button.'

The idea, also, how being serious in trying to elect someone, i.e. actually get who you vote for into office, is different that trying to 'raise the issues,' is also difficult to get across.

Once again, if I hadn't had a little taste of the difference I may never have understood it myself.

This election has been a good time to drag these ideas out of the closet but while Socialism became a huge topic for debate when whispered by Joe the Plumber, the key unfairness of winner-take-all un-democracy remains un- discussed.

Oh well..For What It's Worth..one new idea I have it that there is some confusion because we all understand how winner-take-all (51%) is how decisions are made, so folks accept this thinking....although 51% makes decisions, elections are not about 'making a decision,' so much as having your point of view represented in the decision-making; even if it's only 20%.

But...this takes a whole paragraph to explain; that's not good.

Second, maybe there is an inherent idea that thinking the USA will change over to a parliamentary system is absurd, will never happen, is ridiculous.

(cont.) But - maybe it could be pointed out that important features of a parliamentary system (proportional representation) could be incorporated one step at a time.

? Well, that takes a whole paragraph to explain too. But these remain good ideas for having all voices & small voices heard - and having a real shot at power, as you pointed out so well.

Some states do a thing, I think, where it's easy for third parties to get on the ballot for state elections (where they certainly have more of a chance) and then people can vote for more than one person...

..i.e. people vote for a 1st choice and then a 2nd choice and if their 1st choice doesn't get 15 or 20% then their vote will automaticall...

(cont.) But - maybe it could be pointed out that important features of a parliamentary system (proportional representation) could be incorporated one step at a time.

? Well, that takes a whole paragraph to explain too. But these remain good ideas for having all voices & small voices heard - and having a real shot at power, as you pointed out so well.

Some states do a thing, I think, where it's easy for third parties to get on the ballot for state elections (where they certainly have more of a chance) and then people can vote for more than one person...

..i.e. people vote for a 1st choice and then a 2nd choice and if their 1st choice doesn't get 15 or 20% then their vote will automatically go to their 2nd choice.

The core idea: Every vote is suppose to get represented, not ignored if it doesn't get 50%. - as you know.

Well, it's good to put these ideas out there and perhaps the idea will hit critical mass someday.