What country has the best political setup?

[Belushi]

well yes. the legacy is there, can't be erased but doesn't necessarily impose on the current system. It might do, I don't know enough to comment.

Constitutionaly it could still happen, its one of the arguments Australian republicans use.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, what do you think would happen if the monarchy ended? I think there would be a demand for a head of state, but I also think that this wouldn't fundamentally change the constitutional balance and the prime minister would remain as functional head of the executive. I don't get your point about 'clever' leaders like Blair to tell them what to do. Assuming he or she was ceremonial, like the president of Ireland or Germany, as opposed to functional, lke the president of France or the USA, do you think we'd get a serious grown up public intellectual, or someone off the telly? Who do you think people would vote for?

Sorry, I didn't see this before. The UK has, effectively, a ceremonial head of state. Ireland and Germany have constitutional heads of state. These heads of state are functional - it is their duty to guard the constitution. You appear to misunderstand this.

 

[lobster]

I did'nt misunderstand the question, but should have been clearer.
These countries governments had the spark and embryonic potential to shine as examples to the world of a better way in which human beings can live.
However they did not succeed for one reason or another.

What does that say ? our we ever capable of socialism ? if not , why not?

 

[clusterflux]

no question? I see little to recommend concentration of power into the hands of an individual 'elected' via a process which concentrates real votes into murky electoral colleges. Or a voting system which denies votes to people who haven't registered a party allegiance. There's no mechanism to no confidence vote out the pres before his time is up, although he can be up for impeachment if he offends the weird sexual morality of a country which pretends to separate state and religion but actually verges on theocracy at times.

The arguments against a fixed constitution are made most strongly by the extraordinary gun laws based on militias of the 18th century. Arguments can be made for or against electing judges or senior police etc, but in an electoral system based almost exclusively on spending power, it's hard to spot responsiveness to the needs of those who can't buy influence.

and so on.

Blah, Blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah......Dude, I'm American....I have lived in America all my life. I know the "average" American.

There's no mechanism to no confidence vote out the pres before his time is up, although he can be up for impeachment if he offends the weird sexual morality of a country which pretends to separate state and religion but actually verges on theocracy at times.

Richard Nixon. Weird sexual morality are my three favorite consecutive words that you have written.

The United States of America easily has the best setup because it allows the largest proportion of the population to gain the most powerful position in its form of government. It is a form of government matched to the geography of the country it resides in.
It is a form of government that ensures its "nutters" are extremely well armed. Yet it is still able to send a bunch of people to walk around the moon, and even gets a vehicle up there. I think that for this reason it qualifies for the best form of government. It is capable of successfully meeting the needs of a far wider swath of people than any other government I know.

 

[mentalchik]

The United States of America easily has the best setup because it allows the largest proportion of the population to gain the most powerful position in its form of government. It is a form of government matched to the geography of the country it resides in.
It is a form of government that ensures its "nutters" are extremely well armed. Yet it is still able to send a bunch of people to walk around the moon, and even gets a vehicle up there. I think that for this reason it qualifies for the best form of government. It is capable of successfully meeting the needs of a far wider swath of people than any other government I know.

Do you honestly, really believe this ^ ?

 

[newbie]

no of course s/he doesn't, it's just an obvious troll.




<waves to anna, hope you're doing well >

 

[newbie]

Richard Nixon. Weird sexual morality are my three favorite consecutive words that you have written.

removed from office for breaking the law. I repeat, there's no political mechanism to remove a pres from office, even one who is repressive scum or bombs whoever he feels like.

 

[Kaka Tim]

It is capable of successfully meeting the needs of a far wider swath of people than any other government I know.

Except the millions of its citizens who endure grinding poverty of a sort unknown in any other rich industrialised nation. you must be so proud.

 

[likesfish]

every system has its plus and minuses the UK system is works better in practice than theory says it should.
NI compromise to stop an immediate problem and then ignore if the natives are not killing each other regardless of the consequences Throughout the 1970s and 1980's minister for NI went to the unpopular and unwanted.
it could have been a lot worse.
Irish republic neutral and armed forces minuscule so pressure and threat little.
US bases on UK soil and Nato member little ability to put pressure on.

 

[clusterflux]

I am not trolling here. Like I said, I know the average American. The way the states are set up allows "like minded individuals" to gather together. This system allows for interesting "concentrations" of its citizenry. Take the state of Texas, over 60 percent of Texans believe that Barack Obama is a muslim. Texas has like twelve percent of the U.S. population. Think about that for a minute. This system allows for a citizen like myself to simply avoid the entire state of Texas, problem solved. As far as I know, other forms of government mix these folks in with everyone else.

Addition: I think everyone has specific things they look for in a form of government. Like a previous poster has posited, I think we are discussing which cafe serves the best shit sandwich. I might not get the best shit sandwich, but it does come with all the fixins and is served in a cafe that offers top notch entertainment.

 

[newbie]

You have a form of government that keeps you and millions of your fellow citizens in a state of ignorance about everything from evolution to, apparently, the background of the potential next president and you think that's a good thing? You, like Bush, might get away with that sort of statement in a domestic discussion but I would suggest that if you're really not trolling then you'd do well not to spout drivel to foreigners, because we'll just laugh at you.

 

[clusterflux]

You have a form of government that keeps you and millions of your fellow citizens in a state of ignorance about everything from evolution to, apparently, the background of the potential next president and you think that's a good thing? You, like Bush, might get away with that sort of statement in a domestic discussion but I would suggest that if you're really not trolling then you'd do well not to spout drivel to foreigners, because we'll just laugh at you.

I disagree, I don't think the government is responsible for the ignorance. The U.S. developed the internet for national defense, and one good person introduced legislation that allowed the world to use it so people like you and me could communicate. That is America at its best. Ignorance cannot be legislated away. I accept that there is a percentage of people on this planet who will, having had their attempt to jam the square peg into the round hole thwarted, simply roll up their sleeves, grit their teeth and get to work making that square peg go into that round hole. One could well argue that the U.S. has a disproportionately large number of people who are not just stupid, but actively stupid, they get involved, get organized, and influence people who are just stupid and that the form of government is somehow responsible for this. You could blame human nature as well.

I don't think it is a good thing that people anywhere are ignorant, or violent. I have accepted the fact that people are, and will resist any attempt to help them. I was only saying that I like the idea of all of them living in the same geographic area.

 

[Errol's son]

It is blatantly Angola where I live and work!

What other ruling party besides the Angolan MPLA can claim an 82% majority in what were widely described as fair elections. Jose Eduardo dos Santos must be well relaxed about the presidential elections next year.

UNITA, the main opposition, got 10% and PRS dis surprisingkly well with 3%.

 

[Brainaddict]

It is blatantly Angola where I live and work!

What other ruling party besides the Angolan MPLA can claim an 82% majority in what were widely described as fair elections. Jose Eduardo dos Santos must be well relaxed about the presidential elections next year.

UNITA, the main opposition, got 10% and PRS dis surprisingkly well with 3%.

Uh huh. I'm not sure if 'widely described' is correct. This seems to give a more complex picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_parliamentary_election,_2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7603735.stm

Frankly, 82% would make me suspicious anywhere in the world

The observer mission had heard reports of people being bussed over the border to the Angolan enclave of Cabinda from neighbouring Congo-Brazzaville to vote, he said.

"After a fairly tortuous journey... we came across the most phenomenal scene, where tents, marquees, beds, lavish food was there, and up to 1,500 people, five of whom we interviewed, and gave us evidence that this was all funded by the government."

Mr Howitt said there had been "massive hand-outs" of money, televisions, radios, alcohol, and even cars.

Voters had to pass soldiers lined up three-deep at the entrance to one polling station, he said.

"I personally saw representatives of the ruling party standing not just in the polling station, but in front of the booths where people were voting," Mr Howitt said.

 

[Nigel]

What does that say ? our we ever capable of socialism ? if not , why not?

The inability to impose accountable democratic processes possibly.

 

[Errol's son]

Uh huh. I'm not sure if 'widely described' is correct. This seems to give a more complex picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_parliamentary_election,_2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7603735.stm

Frankly, 82% would make me suspicious anywhere in the world

Interesting links.

Cabinda is a funny problematic place which I do now know well but in the grand schemes of things is a small area.

In Luanda, from what I saw, the vote seemed free and fair.

"The Pan-African Parliament observer mission... said that voter education was inadequate and suggested that the media was dominated by the MPLA"

I would agree with the above as the MPLA did have a huge budget for the election.

But then many educated Angolans I know who claim to be UNITA supporters voted MPLA (I believe) when it actually came to it like "good little boys".

I was taking the piss when I said MPLA are the best in the world as a political party but they are a very clever political party.

Why are their antics never in the international press nor on urban75?

 

[laptop]

Why are [MPLA] antics never in the international press nor on urban75?

They are in the international press: in Portugal - and maybe Brazil, for the same reasons.

If you want to know about Mali, Mauretania, Cote d'Ivoire, etc, you need to read French: you could be forgiven for not knowing Cameroun existed if you read only the English-language media. Kenya hardly figures in the French media.

And so on and so forth.

Partly, it's a colonial leftover - readers in the colonialist country are more likely to have relatives and/or business connections, so editors say "yes" to stories from the colonies. Partly, it's pure language laziness.