I see you're not even reading my posts, so I question why I am bothering - I said this before, but if you really insist I'll take out my wallet and look at a bill

"This Australian note is Legal Tender Throughout Australia and its Territories"

Mhmm, it appears it doesn't actually say that at all.

Er.... this is a trival accounting identity. I'm not even sure what your point is.

I will give credit where it is due: the beast is well thought out- even though it still falls prey to the same fallibility.

It can, to an extent, take money out of the supply... but really, all it does is lock the debt up via bonds, usually held by a foreign country. That debt still exist, it just is not 'in the money supply', it is instead accruing interest for when it 'matures'.

It should also be noted that, like our local banks, we as a country only have to hold only a fraction of our debt. With the printing of trillions of new FRN's, if the dollars buying power dips to far- countries will not hold our debt. And last I looked China by herself held almost 10% of our debt. What do you think will happen if/when that debt is returned?

IMHO, The best banking system is one rooted firmly in intrinsic wealth, which has no fractional reserve allowance, with no 'central bank'- only the treasury- who acts in accordance to the Constitution and whom is regulated by Congress.

Ahhh, well, touché. For your defense of the Fed, I assumed you were American (and don't recall reading otherwise).

That's what happens when you assume... my apologies.

If you happen a US dollar, you will see Federal Reserve Note at the top. Of course, it is 'authorized' by the Treasurer's and Secretary's signatures... but that is about it.




This is by no means trivial. And I explained the significance.

second post in the thread. I just like to think I'm informed I actually have a bunch of US dollars for when I travel their but obviously I don't carry them around.




This is a serious problem that is going to burn the US government in the medium term. But its not created by the Fed at all, its created by a policy of running increasing government deficits. Almost all your debt has een brought by overseas investors.

However this is a fiscal policy issue.

The reason why the bit about money and debt is farscial is that now money IS debt. We've decided as a society that we don't actually need to pass gold bars around.

Of course not.
But when the source is an employee of the ministry of foreign affairs (and the PR department for that matter) and contributes the crisis to the American government not applying Russian policies, in a government-controlled newspaper, i'm taking an extra grain of salt with that.

There is nothing but fiat money. A thing is only worth what someone is willing to give for it, this is true for all things, including gold.

Gold, Silver, Platinum, these things have no intrinsic value, but some morons are willing to give them value because they're rare and shiny. Thus to say that money should be backed by precious metals is pure absurdity.

To drift back on topic:
Mr. Kruschoff says we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
This is the same blather the Soviets have been saying for 60+ years.

They would be SOL, they'd have to find a buyer of the note. As long as the contractual payments are made they can't call the loan (unless there are provisions for it, which there aren't any). If they did find a buyer, they would get less than the value of the note. If all the foreign governments dumped their US Govt backed Securities at once, it would be even worse for them. It is actually in their best interest to not let that happen.

Which is why fiat money came into being in the first place. Governments have things like real estate, historical artifacts, and other assets which made the tracking of a country's wealth by its gold/silver reserves pointless (especially now that gold, silver and platinum have industrial, particularly in electronics, as well as aesthetic value). THough I never recall a country using platinum to back its currency. The issue is that limiting money supply by gold or silver was problematic and led to alot of recessions in the early part of last century.

That's not accurate Warlordtheft, it was never a matter of 'pointless wealth tracking'...

Fiat money came from the broken promise that the FRN was 'good as gold'. The people bought into the lie, and systematically gold was removed from the equation from the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to the end of its 20 year charter (1933)... which, not coincidently, gold was even made illegal for US citizens to own.

The 'good as gold line' was still being touted though- not for American citizens but for foreign countries- and this perception, mixed with the majority of the worlds economies crippled by WWII allowed the dollar to be set up as the world reserve currency during the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. Naturally as we swelled the money supply more and more, our ability to honor the 'good as gold' line became less and less possible, and in 1970-71 a few countries actually demanded us to honor our world... which we did not do. In 1971, through well worded contracts with OPEC, foreign oil (who contractually was bound to sell oil only in dollars) became the 'de facto' backing. Since the backing is based on oil transactions with foreign countries however, this is also the date when America became a true and complete fiat currency.

No, they have their own currencies to fall back on, which would suddenly get considerably stronger compared to the USD/FRN. We would be the ones SOL as sudden hyperinflation would decimate the economy completely.

It is naive to think that US consumption of goods is what 'drives the world economy'... places like China and India have enough people to take that role over, no problem, should the above happen.

And it should be noted, China works in terms of decades- and they have made the threat of returning our debt more then once. The most recent time was just before the bailouts began, and the legislation was changed from buying solely US toxic debt, the world toxic debt. Ten years from now, China may not just threaten us- they may be ready to act against us instead.

Err, no it wouldn't cause hyperinflation. You're still an insane conspiracy theorist.

What would happen if the world auctioned off 6 trillion dollars of US government debt would be (there is like 13 trillion of it out there)

A) The inability of the US government to incur more debt.

B) US government debt becoming the most attractive investment in the world, because yield rates would boom.

The US dollar would be forced down and everyone elses currency would be forced up, the chinese yuan would suddenly appreciate very rapidly and complete destroy china's export capability, s their margins at less than 3% and their currency would appreciate by 10% or more.

Selling off all the US government debt would completely destroy china's economy.

Note that that is a 6 trillion dollar sale, the Chinese only hold 500 billion dollars, which is less than 50% of the value of new securities that the US treasury auctions off every year. While a staged program to sell it off over a year would drive up yields, it wouldn't sink the US. It might get some jock rash, but not a huge issue.

It would sink china though, that 820 billion dollars has been brought to avoid letting the Yuan appreciate.

Socialism isn't communism. I guess that Marxist Socialism is close to Communism (or Marxism Communism to be exact) but it's just one kind of socialism. It was, arguably, the one the western bloc fought against during the cold war and I'd be surprised to see the USA adopt this one.

I think that the "socialist structure" you're thinking of is closer to Social Democracy. This one is common in Europe and could be found in Western Europe during the Cold War.

Upon reading the OPs quote the first thing I thought is that the Russian commentator had been gleaning idea from reading SR's history!

I really don't see the US collapsing any time soon, even if the economy continues to sink beyond the next couple of years. A degree of power and status will likely be lost, but the country itself will not break apart since there isn't enough localised identity; unlike the USSR, which effectively occupied a bunch of smaller countries, each with their own unique histories going back half a millenia or more. I dread to think that Russia would become the economic regulator in Europe. At present their influence comes mostly from their capacity to provide oil and gas to Europe, and that isn't going to last forever. Most of Europe is suspicious of Russia, so we are going to be extremely careful in our dealings with them.

iirc, marx argued that communism would be a stepping stone towards socialism proper.

also, he was a german, writing his thing based on, and aimed at, the conditions in germany during the 1800's...

one problem so far is that the nations that have tried to implement anything like what he describes have been anything but fit for the change.

russia was a pesant monarchy attempting to become a democracy and got dragged into a war it was in no way ready for.

china was not that much different.

cuba? im not even sure what it could be described as at the time castro and crew took over.

vietnam? long story...

north korea? same...

laos? no clue...

but most of those can probably be summed up in attempting to go directly from monarchy, or the equivalent, to communism. this then basically bypassing any kind of democracy, and missing out on making people used to voicing a opinion (the democracy stands and falls on people willing to hold and voice a opinion, no matter how contrary it is no the current leadership's official one).

as for seeing USA collapse. i guess it will only happen when people start referring to themselves as "state"-ian, rather then american...

This is a bit of a tangent, but hey, what else is new on Dumpshock?

I don't think western democracies ever fought against socialism, though the word has been tossed around as an equivalent to many types of dictatorship and totalitarianism against which there has been long-term global struggle.

At the risk of drawing renewed worry from south of the border, I would point out that Canada is in many ways a socialist state. Not Communist, not totalitarian. Quite democratic and stable and a damn fine ally in the UN, NATO, etc. (And NO, dammit, the 9/11 bombers did NOT come through here! Straighten out that Limbaugh asshole, will somebody?)

Oddly enough, I see people setting democracy and communism as opposites. They are not. Communism is an economic worldview that grew in opposition to the rampant capitalism of Europe in the 1800s. A democracy could just as easily be communist as it could be capitalist. Nobody has tried it yet. I'm sure you see what a hard sell that would be, though.

Peter

Uh ... East Germany? It was tabula rasa, society-wise, it was German, it was full of educated and overwhelmingly socialist-minded people. Still, it failed. Hm. Can't, of course, be the theory. Must be the fact that the country wasn't ready.

Damn humans. They ruin all ivory tower social theories. DAMN YOU HUMANS!


It has been tried. It failed. Democracy doesn't work well with an overbearing, all-controlling state, because said state will never take the people controlling it.

As for the OP ... Russia as Europe's regulatory power? Dream on, Russkies. You're already enemy number one in Europe. And if Russia gets more cocky (which, given how oil and gas prices just collapse, it hardly can afford any more; Russia's headed for a very hard economical landing itself), it will only reaffirm the border nations it occupied for the last century to distance themselves even more.

As for the russian settlers in the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus? I see Belarus being assimilated into Russia, the Settlers being grudgingly accepted in the Baltics, and Ukraine separating. I'd also not be surprised if Russia fragemnts even more, or is torn by long-lasting civil wars as Moscow tries o prevent this. I could also see China taking over much of Siberia. But Russia as a regulatory power? Please. Any 'analyst' who claims this is making a fool of himself.

Socialism, at least so long as it remains moderate (the most extreme form tolerable being Chavez' brand) goes surprisingly well with democracy. However, socialism has to account for free markets, at least in some sectors, or you have the whole stagnation, maladministration and corrpution problem of the Eastern Block again. It's difficult to balance and has to be readjusted regzularily, but so far, it works fairly well.

Where has a democratic, communist state been tried?

Communism is not synonymous with 'overbearing, all-controlling state'. Totalitarianism is. There have been totalitarian states that professed the ideology of communism, but did not practice it.

Here is an axiom you can chew on for a while:

True communism has failed to be fully expressed anywhere for the same reason true democracy has failed to do so. Each requires full commitment and participation from every member of society. Any social organization that approaches the size of a modern state cannot be either democratic or communist. They collapse into something else from the weight of the population.

If you want a look at an American society that one can argue has come closer than any to a democratic state (don't know as yet about communist, need to think some more), take a gander at the Iroquoian Confederacy before and during the early years of contact with Europeans.

Peter

Actually I just read a book by LE Modesitt JR called Adiamante that touches on almost every point raised in this thread. He uses a concept called "Comptime" for currency which is essentially a faith agreement between the individual and socity to repay for the resources that individual is using.

East Germany tried (and failed). There was an experiment in Africa too, but I fail to remember which one of them. Israel's Kibuzzim were fairly successful initially, actually, but in the end failed too because comminism never can keep up with market conomies, economically, and in the end, they just weren't economically viable any more.


True ideologies always fail. Goes for true theocracy too. Because Reality always demands compromises.


Don't know the Iroquis confed, but the truest democracy I know would be Switzerland with it's very direct popular votes on fairly everything and it's consensus model of government.

The US isn't faring too badly, but the electoral system, especially for the presidency, redices too many votes to toilet paper, and while strong regions make this huge nation surprisingly stable, the various agencies and their far-reaching authority are downright creepy. Also, the two-party system makes independent presidents impossible.

The US don't realy have a two-party system from an European point of view, as the democrats and republicans aren't real parties in the traditional sense, more like a loose alliance of vaguely like-minded, but independent and sometimes competing political entrepreneurs.
It's not about the official party line, fraction discipline and establishing a rigid, but mostly reliable organisation that espouses a certain political point of view, but about individuals with clearly identifiable political positions (which may differ vastly from the party line in general), who can directly be held accountable for their decisions.
It's not about organizations as representatives of political believes, but about individuals competing for power.
Which, not coincidentaly, works out nicely for the US.

Furthermore, an independent chancelor in Germany would be about as unlikely as an independent US president- what the political system of the USA really prevents are smaller parties and coalitions.


BTW, as far as i remember, democracy in Eastern Germany was intended as window-dressing from the very beginning.
It was a clear case of top-down decisions orchestrated by Soviet Russia, not a real attempt at democratic communism (plus, the GDR always referred to itself as socialist and being less advanced on their way to communism than the USSR).

So our SPD and CDU/CSU aren't either?

Yes, they don't have this sect-like character that's really beginning to worry me about German parties. I mean, take the Ypsilanti SPD: They blatantly break a promise not to work with the Commies, and those who keep that promise are cast out, mobbed, and covered in law suits. That's how Scientology would deal with dissenters, not a democratic party. The US parties are, for all their faults, closer to the ideal of the democratic party than Germany's cheer-and-blindly-follow-the-secretary-general parties.


actually sums up a democratic party's makeup fairly well.


These organisations are, in Germany, also only vessels for the powerrmongering of their respective leaders. The SPD and Commies are the most obvious examples, but the Christian Democrats and Liberals aren'T much better. The greens are different insofar as they spend much energy on fighting each other, but even they were, during Fisher's reign (who NEVER held any official position in the party), little more than good old Joshka's personal cheerleaders.

I really don't see where this works better and more democratic than the US' system. That system, for all it'S faults, still is more democratic than ours. Every member of congress, for instance, is far more directly responsible for his direct constituency. They dion't have party lists for all I know, everyone is elected directly, and hence, every citizen in the US has their respective member of parliament to adress. In Germany, in turn, there's this mix of direct and list mandates. Lots of MoP are there without having any constituency to answer to (and those usually are the power hungry and detached elitarian types like Andrea Ypsilanti and her cronies, Scheer and Thomas Whatshisface. Where's that more democratic?


Sure, I never said our system is better, which it isn't, though it has it's upsides, too. As there are less votes that are toilet paper thanks to the multi-party parliament we have, and a rather standing for the strong opposition thanks to how comittees and stuff are staffed. Neither system is ideal, of course, but like I said before, Ideals and Reality don't mix at all.


No, before Ulbricht's stalinist Commies took over, it wasn't. Neither was the USSR born a stalinist state, by the way. It's just that democratic communism never works, and always collapses in authoritarianism.

This has become a really cool thread.



You seem to be under this impression that 1) US consumption is needed for the rest of the world to survive economically and 2) the USD cannot be removed as the 'world reserve currency'. And you have the audacity to call me, who speaks of historical precedence, the 'conspiracy theorist'?

I see a hyperinflation period coming. Others see a major bank-hoarding deflationary period. I guess time will tell which is correct... but neither is going to be fun. Best case scenario America starts playing by sensible monetary practices and the recession last only a few years. Worst case however... well... let's just say the Yuan would be the new world currency and there is a good chance the USD would need to be completely replaced.




There is actually a working currency called Ithaca hours out of New York that is based in this principle.

Not sure how well it would work beyond the local level- but it has survived for nearly twenty years at that level.



Well said.

Much less than the democrats and republicans.
In Germany, the party comes before the individual politician, in the US, it's the other way around.
The very idea of fraction discipline (for those Americans who still read this : the idea that all members of a party vote the same way for a certain proposal in parliament) would be abhorrent to an American senator.
In US parliaments, members regularly vote for proposals made by the other party, in Germany, this is avoided at all costs.



I didn't say it would.
Unlike many other Germans, i refuse to see the USA as a pseudo-democracy, because they very clearly aren't.
They just have a different approach towards the electoral system.
Not the best one (i personally prefer the single transferrable vote system used in Ireland, as it leads to the highest percentage of votes not "being reduced to toilet paper", to use your words), but it certainly fits the political culture in the US and has proven to be stable for a longer time than any other democratic system.

And as a U.S. citizen, I would point out that the U.S.A. is a republic not a democracy. There is a difference, as in the republic officialls are elected to represent their constituents (if they don't, in theory they will not be reelected). This means that some elected officials may have different agendas from their other party members. A democrat from the rural south suchas Alabama will have a much different perspective certain issues than the northern democrat from New York City.

Most of the checks and balances built into our system of government comes from fears that a majority would squash minority rights. This is why we have two houses, the house (population based) and the senate (state based). That way states that have smaller populations don't get ignored in the legislative process.

Side note on communism, it has never been successfully implemented. Mostly due to the fact that it requires a completely selfless person to be in charge, a populace that is always motivated to work for the common good, and that no-one is ever greedy. Barring a small population such as a commune, or some sort of mind control (break out the tin foil hats )to create such a populace, communism will fail. In almost all cases of communism, those in charge take what they want, the workers seeing no personal benefit don't see why they should work (usuall showing up late for work, not doing everything possible while on the job, etc, etc) as they get a paycheck no matter what, and that what goods that are produced don't get hoarded or mis-appropriated to the black market.

I can't help but agree with this analysis. I would also note that communism and its opposite, capitalism, are both economic systems that can be perverted by those in charge to meet their needs/wants at the expense of the majority. Each has an ideology espoused by its proponents that
is meant to convince the losers they really aren't losing.

Peter

I'd just like to mention that the electoral vote system was not intended to keep people's votes from becoming "toilet paper". It exists solely to make the elections harder to manipulate.

Oh, and uh, "Conspiracy Lizard."

Also, my favorite dead commie, in Mickey ears.

Actually, I believe we turned away from gold because circulating paper is a better medium for spreading chemicals or diseases among the populace. Case in point:

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp - 4/5 of American dollars have traces of cocaine.
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-...-health-9823-1/ - Most dollar bills carry bacteria harmful to human health.

Gold coins are both naturally anti-biotic, and less likely to carry trace elements.

Also worth noting, both the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health have major offices in or around Washington DC, within a very short ride of each other.

Coincidence? I"ll let you decide.

now thats a conspiracy theory

Yeah. That and it's easier to make currency out of dead trees (or once alive trees) instead of gold, which in the end isn't all that common.

Is it can it be Deus Ex time now please?

{US) Constitutional History is one of my hobbies. The Electoral College - "a collection of wise men" - was put in place to prevent the masses from making stupid decisions with respect to the president. I'm not saying it really works that way but that is why the Founding Fathers came up with it.

Nowadays it is a relic of that now past time.

-----

EDIT: corrected spelling.

Which would make any modern democracy a republic*, as they all rely more or less on a concept of representative democracy.
A democracy truly governed by the people, where every single decision is decided directly by the populace, seems as impossible to reach as viable forms of communism or anarchism.
Even nations that incorporate an extremely high degree of plebiscitarian elements, such as Switzerland, still rely on represantatives for the day-to-day government work.
Unsurprisingly, i might add, as governing a modern nation state is a full-time job.
Imagine having to inform yourself about every single issue that concerns the state as a whole and make up your mind about it...even professional politicians tend to delegate a lot of work to experts nowadays and to rely on a staff to prepare matters for them.


*I'd rather use the term representative democracy, as opposed to plebiscitarian democracy, since republic is usually used in the dichotomy republic vs monarchy.

Given the state of the American political system from an outsider's point of view, I think it is an appropriate edit.

I would not disagree with the edit based on the things I see today.

Here was an argument in favor of the system back in the day:



And here is a decent wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

No system is perfect because they are all designed by the hands of men.

I don;t get whats wrong with the electoral college system. The objective seems to be much as the senate which is to allow small states disproportionate representation.

There are a number of issues.

#1. The over representation of small states. In Alaska a single persons vote is worth 2.5 electoral college votes while in Californa a persons vote is worth .83 electoral college votes. This is due to the fact that each state gets a number of electoral college votes equal to its representatives in congress, and thus small states get a larger proportional boost from there two Senators then large states do. In practice however, this factor is overwhelmed by the later issues.

#2. Winner take all. In all states in our nation, save two, the electoral college is a winner take all issue. Which means that the candidate with the majority of the votes in the election gets all of the votes in the state. The problem here is that even in states that lean strongly one way or another (like say Texas or California) still have very large minorities in opposition. For example in California, Obama won 61% of the vote. However he will receive not 61% of the electoral college votes, but 100% of them. Which means some nearly 5 million votes for John McCain became not just toilet paper, but in fact votes for the opposing candidate!

This is the biggest problem with the electoral college, and it is the primary reason why Al Gore lost the 2000 election despite winning a majority of the popular votes. If electoral votes were distributed to the various candidates within the state on a proportional basis (there a number of rational methods that could be used), it would not have been the case. Furthermore, this winner take all proposition is not inherent in the electoral college system itself, but in the way states decide to choose their electors.

This winner take all system is also the reason why we see such a disproportionate focus on so-called 'swing states' as this is where campaigns can get the most bang for their buck. Gaining a few votes in Ohio or Florida can benefit a campaign much more than winning more votes in a secure state such as Texas or California.

#3. It encourages states to disenfranchise people. We may have finally started to turn the corner on this issue, but for years in many states registering to vote was a difficult process. The various parties used various means to try and discourage their opponents from registering and voting. The reason for this (beyond the obvious) is simple. Electoral vote distribution is based upon the census, not turn out on election day. Hypothetical, if only one person in California could be bothered to get out and vote, California would still receive all of its electoral college votes. In this way states are not penalized or given advantage based upon their turnout, which also leads to votes in some states being worth more than votes in others, depending upon the turnout. Which is part of the reason why disenfranchisement is such an effective method of ballot rigging.

#4. Faithless electors. So far this problem has been largely hypothetical. But nothing prevents electors from casting there vote in whatever manner they please, instead of the manner the state directs them. In some cases they might be violating laws back in their home states, but their votes would remain valid. One way this could become a serious problem would be if one of the presidential candidates was to die between the general election and when the electoral college meets. The candidates are in no way pledged to vote for the VP candidate, and might (and likely will) scatter there votes. Luckily so far there have been only a few cases of faithless electors, and non has caused any major disruption, but there is no guarntee this will continue.

#5. A close election might get thrown into the house. Every time this has happened the results have been less than satisfactory. Ironically, this is probably the method the founding fathers expected most elections to be settled by!

--

There are a number of proposals out there on methods to reform the electoral college. I am in favor of nearly all of them. But realistically if we could just do away with the winner take all system in most of the states the system would work much, much better.

To the contrary, I'd think it's more relevant now than it ever was before.

But I do agree, the all-or-nothing aspect sort of sucks (I don't mind weighting votes by state. We do need to give minorities the ability to represent themselves better. And frankly, despite California's votes being lighter, the fact that California, New York & Texas gets you half way to being elected means that Alaska is still pretty irrelevant.

Exactly, this is not the peoples republic of CA, NY and TX. It consists of more than just those three states. Note this is balanced out by the fact that the house of representatives is population based. So in theory, any legislation must be approved by the representitives representing the majority of the populace.

*chuckle*

It's a source of great friction among regions of Canada that by the time the polls close in Ontario (Eastern Time Zone), enough votes have been cast (from Ontario and Quebec) that the Western Provinces (out to Pacific Time Zone) are almost as irrelevant. My wife in Toronto used to phone her dad in Calgary and tell him what 'the country' had decided. He would threaten separation.

Now that the only place in Canada where the economy is flourishing is Alberta, there is an increasing flow of people out west. Some day the population imbalance may disappear. Of course Westerners will then have to deal with the cosmopolitan nature of their own cities, instead of decrying the eastern cities for that 'flaw'.

Peter

Sorry, not quite necroposting but close...I just thought this was a cool and interesting thread and wanted to throw in my two cents.
Yes, I am an American and I really liked reading what those of you not from my country of origin had to say. I try my damnedest not to be an "ugly American" and like to try and stay knowledgeable about things beyond our borders.
Now, moving on, when it comes to political discussions I believe that anything any of us can come up with is really all just speculation and educated guessing.

We can all look at one all-consuming fact. Man is fallible. Any system we design will become corrupt, it's our nature. Even if you get the best honestly good-hearted people in charge, evil men will find a way to manipulate them.
The only true systems that could TRULY never be corrupted are:
A: True Theocracy, where whatever deity you choose to have faith in comes down his/her/itself and lays down and enforces the laws by his/her/it's own hand.
or B: Anarchy, because by its very definition, anarchy is no system at all, therefore there is nothing to corrupt.

And as for those options, well lets' face it...True Theocracy? Not bloody likely. And Anarchy? Look, I'm a fan of Chaos, but even I know that we need some semblance of a system. Let humans run free-form willy-nilly? Man, people are worried about us reducing the world to a heap of slag NOW? Try giving the truly evil no red tape to have to work through.

I'm a bit of a fan of what's being called Neo-Archano Capitalism. Where all of us across the globe all rely on each other for goods and services. You're less likely to start a fight with someone if it means you actually might loose something you need. World Peace won't be built on Love, it'll be built on Money. But even that system has it's flaws, it's loopholes, and it's ability to be corrupted. Hell, too many people think capitalism is an expletive. It's like Communism, on paper, communism is awesome...so is socialism, but we judge things by their worst examples. As my Dad used to say "One Screw-Up cancels out ten Atta-boys"

All in all I think nothing will work perfectly, hopefully we can find something that just isn't broken TOO badly.

nezumi,

I was referring more to the Founders original intent which has since been lost in the current winner takes all system. The Founding Fathers never intended the states to dictate the votes of the electors - at least I can't find any evidence to that end. The state laws about "forcing" electors came later when political parties became so powerful. Each wanted their votes to go to their party and decided they could put the force of law behind it.

Originally, the Founders had a system where a small group would evaluate the presidential candidates and then vote for who they felt was best. The people never really had any say in it at all. Imagine that the DS community (the US based folks at least) were asked to pick the President. We could tell California, Texas, New York and Alaska to go stuff themselves and elect Joe the Plumber. And, that would be fine.

The Founders envisioned the President being something of a super-representative who would head up what amounted to a close knit international federation. Therefore, he needed the backing of the States, not the people. The people had their Representatives in Congress which was a separate cog in the system. The States sent the electors and presumably could influence their thinking.

The US has gotten very far away from the original principals in the Constitution. The Senate is elected by the populace, not appointed by the State. (There was an acceptable reason for the change but the change didn't solve the problem - namely, people buying the election of Senator.) The Executive Branch is way out of proportion to what the Founders saw. (Again, there were reasons.) The Electoral College is no different. It functions in a way that is something other than what the Founders saw.

Anyway, before I completely get off topic, I think that the Electoral College should be restored to its original role or done away with. The limbo it exists in now is quite useless. Converting my vote to the "opposition" is not helpful. However, neither is ignoring smaller states (population wise).

I personally would like to see the amendment on Senators repealed and the Electoral College go back to it's original function. However, I would only like to see this if the Feds were put back in the proper place of regulating States and not the People.

While I don't agree that Founders intent should matter a wit to us today (the found fathers had a number of really daft and bad ideas, no reason we should be chained to them), I do agree that our current system is so far from what they intended that the founders intent argument in favor of the electoral college is rather irrelevant.

It is really sad in a way because honestly the system isn't that broken. Having the states choose pledge electors who then then vote as the states direct isn't a terrible idea (not exactly what the founding fathers wanted, but meh). Giving some states disproprtionate representation may have its merits. Giving all states equal representation regardless of turnout may be a good idea.

But really, the winner take all system perverts what good there may be in it. If we could just do away with that, the system would probably work. More or less. Good enough for government work as they say .

Wow Alex, you make a very well-reasoned argument. I concur.

@ nezumi
Thanks.

@ MaxMahem
Drop me a PM sometime with your opinion on what was a daft idea - I'm curious, but I don't want to derail this thread.

Also, I concur that we are not bound by what the Founding Fathers had in mind; however, not understanding our history can only end badly. If a change is not well understood, or if it alters something other than the problem (see the election of Senators) then is it really better?

Just kind of curious, so do you prescribe more to the Federalist and Scalia thought of going back to the literal interpretation of the Constitution? It seems you might not be a fan for the other school of thought that the Constitution should be interpreted in context with today's society.

Well said Alex.

I know, for me, I am in the 'literal spirit and text' camp.

Creative interpretation is the tool of tyrants.

I think most ppl really should watch this nice documentry that explains our current monetary system very well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8


Allso, since we have reached peak oil in about 2005 and that is party why we have the current economic crisis in the world, and it will continue to be so until we find a way to get rid of our need for oil to boost our economy.. Because Oil and economic growth in todays world are so interlinked that we can not have a steady economic growth unless we have a steadily increasing supply of oil..
Graph that explains about when we hit peak oil is here Courtesy of a swedish economic blogger that is VERY informative..
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-CXk2-VWGgQ/STZL...n_1997-2008.png


The US might not break up, but you are screwed as a super power in about 2-10 years..

Good monetary explanation video Nkari.

Though, I don't agree with you on the peak oil.

Considering all that is affected by oil, and the power that oil barons have because of this- it works in their favor to promulgate the lie that 'peak oil has occurred' and that 'we are now running out of oil'. This is even more reinforced by fact that alternate energy is given only lip service- and is yet to be given the attention or the funds needed to replace oil.

Lindsey Williams wrote a great book, The Energy Non-Crisis. It talks about how there was a massive oil field found in Alaska bigger then the largest Saudi oil field (which he was a minister at) and how, instead of this oil field being drilled and America becoming oil-independent, the powers that be made the news, and the reservoir, classified.

You can google his name and book, there is a google vid or two on it too, iirc.