We a shorter political season.

Originally posted by bill718
While many countries around the world have updated their political systems. United States still labors under a hastily conceived and ill-designed Electoral College first created in the late 18th century as stated in the story below. Sadly this system has produced a never ending political season, the outcome of which depends a great deal on rich, shadowy dono ...[text shortened]... m/articles/2013/01/26/too-soon-for-2016-how-to-end-our-endless-presidential-election-season.html

Sorry folks...the title of my post was supposed to be We NEED a shorter political season. The edit button vanished before I saw my error.🙂

Originally posted by normbenign
I'm no expert on Africa, but it seems the majority did use war and revolution to effect political change.

I would estimate that that happens a bit more than half the time, yes. And it is more likely once it has happened once (people get used to violence).

I come from Zambia, possibly the most peaceful country on the continent. We have managed to go from British colony to country and then later change our constitution (around 1990) to a multiparty system and are still trying to amend the constitution to make it even better - all without civil war.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would estimate that that happens a bit more than half the time, yes. And it is more likely once it has happened once (people get used to violence).

I come from Zambia, possibly the most peaceful country on the continent. We have managed to go from British colony to country and then later change our constitution (around 1990) to a multiparty system and are still trying to amend the constitution to make it even better - all without civil war.

That is an excellent record, and ambition. I only wish we could have settled our differences in the States without shedding the blood of 600,000 dead, and who knows how many maimed.

Did you see the movie "Blood Diamond"? There is a scene where an skinny old man is sitting in what appears to be a burned out town square, and he says "It's a good thing we didn't have oil".

Originally posted by normbenign
That might be the question, which nobody has a real answer to.

In the mind of a collectivist, what works in individual European countries should work for the EU.

Meanwhile in Greece.......

Originally posted by whodey
There is no question that the more local politics are the more represented you become. Your vote is worth more and those you are voting for live close to your community.

I'm tired of the great divide where you have socialist leaning states and more conservative states trying to obtain power federally in order to exercise power over the other. What sense ...[text shortened]... its, however, you still have those pushing for centralized control and more power. It's insane.

So, if you cannot give an answer to the question of what the "optimal" size of a nation state government is, why are you claiming that the current size (of e.g. the US federal government) is not optimal?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So, if you cannot give an answer to the question of what the "optimal" size of a nation state government is, why are you claiming that the current size (of e.g. the US federal government) is not optimal?

As I have said repeatedly, Congress only has an approval rating of about 10% and the country is divided. This is not working. Add to that a debt of going on $20 trillion and what you have is a country about ready to implode.

Originally posted by whodey
As I have said repeatedly, Congress only has an approval rating of about 10% and the country is divided. This is not working. Add to that a debt of going on $20 trillion and what you have is a country about ready to implode.

I see. So whenever a parliament has a low approval rating, the solution is to make the government "smaller"? Why?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. So whenever a parliament has a low approval rating, the solution is to make the government "smaller"? Why?

Government funds itself by taking people's money. If the people are dissatisfied with the government's performance, it would make sense to eliminate expensive programs which aren't making the masses happy and let people keep their hard earned money.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. So whenever a parliament has a low approval rating, the solution is to make the government "smaller"? Why?

One man sitting in Washington should have nothing to say how my child is being educated or what doctor I see. The system is absurd. We can barely take care of our own lives and those in our community, let alone an entire nation

The army of czars Obama has hired to run our lives is not close to being enough. Besides that, why do we even want someone running our lives?

Originally posted by whodey
One man sitting in Washington should have nothing to say how my child is being educated or what doctor I see. The system is absurd. We can barely take care of our own lives and those in our community, let alone an entire nation

The army of czars Obama has hired to run our lives is not close to being enough. Besides that, why do we even want someone running our lives?

Don't you think that if you think that the federal government is too large a scale for a government, you should at least ask yourself why you hold that belief?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Don't you think that if you think that the federal government is too large a scale for a government, you should at least ask yourself why you hold that belief?

Are you not reading my posts?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So, if you cannot give an answer to the question of what the "optimal" size of a nation state government is, why are you claiming that the current size (of e.g. the US federal government) is not optimal?

I respect whodey's answer, but in my mind it is a matter of intent. The US government was never intended to be as large and overbearing as it is.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. So whenever a parliament has a low approval rating, the solution is to make the government "smaller"? Why?

Considering that in a two party State, about half are almost always opposed to what the government is doing (it may even be worse if parties are more numerous), then it isn't surprising that the majority aren't happy about the course of a nation which keeps taking on new duties to fulfill at taxpayer expense.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you not reading my posts?

What I see in your posts is a lot of frustration about the way things currently are.

What I don't see is an attempt to understand the way things currently are, nor an attempt to justify how things ought to be. I think that if you try to think about how things ought to be, and why, it will also help you deal with and understand your frustration about how things currently are.

Originally posted by quackquack
Government funds itself by taking people's money. If the people are dissatisfied with the government's performance, it would make sense to eliminate expensive programs which aren't making the masses happy and let people keep their hard earned money.

I disagree. If someone you employ is not doing their job properly, paying them a lower salary is not always the best solution. If a product or service you are paying for is not up to standard, paying less for it or refusing to pay for it is not always the best solution.
It simply doesn't automatically make sense to stop paying government just because people are dissatisfied with its work. There are many much more sensible solutions - and even doing nothing might be better than making things worse. Sometimes a poor service that you are dissatisfied with is far better than no service at all. I strongly recommend trying turning off all electricity in the house for one full day to see what I mean.

I feel compelled to add that I strongly suspect that neither you nor whodey actually advocate spending less on the genuinely expensive and unnecessary government spending which is arms manufacturing.