Get rid of the Governor General

[Finder]

I think not, I understand but currently the Sup-Court of the USA is pretty much in control of the Republican party. Pretty much with the Executive and the Senate in the hands of the Republicans they can basically chose a republican like canidate. True the Senate doesn't have to approve of the choice, but I do think one party controling every aspect of the American government is not good. But the system is set up to weaken even that with stagged elections it is always possible every two years to get a change in the parties. So thats another place where the USA is fare more superior, democratic and republican then our system or almost any other in the world.

The problems I can find in the system are few. As I said it favours a two party system, but that could always be changed with making the congress a lot more direct in the future, and the electoral collage itself is somewhat, troublesome with close races and third party canidates.

 

[Nuggler]

You can replace that with checks and balances, which you currently lack. You are in effect, counting on the fact Her Majesty will not go insane. If I were 80 and haven't had sex in a decade or two, I'd be pretty dam cranky. Enough to deport en masse. :lol:

I believe a lot of people believe your country's present leader may be insane. Some of his actions might point that way. So much for "your" much ballyhooed "checks and balances"

Get your own house in order.

:?

 

[Finder]

oldnugly, system can work perfectly but when the people themselves are somewhat misguided and arrogant, a democracy will reflect the people. Bush might be.... not so good, but he was elected by the people. But just look at the vast magority of people who elected him.

As long as the middle class of north america lives the way we do we will elect leaders who will at least keep the status quo going for as long as possible. OIL for instance is one of the leading benifits for the middle class in america. Not because they directly profit from it but they desire it and need it to live the life they do. They need affordable gas to live in the suburbs and travel to work in the cities. I could ryme of reasons why the middle class votes as it does but this one is one of my favorites. In the USA and Canada if gas ever reach a certain price the middle classes life style which they have become accustomed to would completely change. They could no longer live in the burbs and drive their SUVs, they would have to move back into the crowded cities where there is the working class and violance and smaller accomadations and possibly use the great equalizer, mass transit.

So don't blame the electoral system on Bush, blame the American people for voting him in. Also I personally believe, even though the Democrats are a lesser evil they are not much better then the Republicans.

 

[I think not]

I believe a lot of people believe your country's present leader may be insane. Some of his actions might point that way. So much for "your" much ballyhooed "checks and balances"

Get your own house in order.

:?

Ah yes, a Canadian nationalist, much like American nationalists, dare we say anything negative. :roll:

 

[I think not]

I think not, I understand but currently the Sup-Court of the USA is pretty much in control of the Republican party. Pretty much with the Executive and the Senate in the hands of the Republicans they can basically chose a republican like canidate. True the Senate doesn't have to approve of the choice, but I do think one party controling every aspect of the American government is not good. But the system is set up to weaken even that with stagged elections it is always possible every two years to get a change in the parties. So thats another place where the USA is fare more superior, democratic and republican then our system or almost any other in the world.

Finder, I think you are making a huge error in your analysis in regards to the Supreme Court. If a justice is seemed to be too radical in their views they can be prevented from being appointed by means of filibuster. That is to say, that even if one party controls the Senate, the other party can prolong the nomination indefinately in order to force the President to cancel the appointment. Also, when either party controls the House and Senate it doesn't mean they will necessarily vote in favor of a law, keep that in mind. Many laws that Bush has sent to Congress has been thrown away by his own party.

The problems I can find in the system are few. As I said it favours a two party system, but that could always be changed with making the congress a lot more direct in the future, and the electoral collage itself is somewhat, troublesome with close races and third party canidates.

It does favor a two party system and it needs fixing, that doesn't prevent a third party from running, providing it has enough support.

The electoral college has ways of dealing with a "deadlock" election. But I agree it needs to be revised.