election 08

[Xia]

Getting back to congress. You know what the most balanced system is? A Republican President, with a Democratic Congress, or a Democratic president, with a Republican Congress. If either party proposes a new bill, it can be shot down easily. But as a drawback, little changes, and hardly anything gets done. Unless it appeals to both parties.

I wouldn't call that a balanced system, that would actually be tipped in favor of whoever is running congress, as they actually have more power than the president, honestly

[Mitera Nikkou]

Which ultimately means that the majority party will have more power, since party also plays a role in the executive branch.

Which pretty much makes the three-branch system unbalanced. It's harder to make checks and balances that way (or the appropriate kind, at least). Which might be why our government didn't start with a party system. But that may as well just be my take on it.

[Flannery]

Am I the only one who payed attention in civics class?

But, In order for congress to enact a new bill it first must go threw the president, vice president, the president's cabinet, and Supreme court. It is a good system.

[Mitera Nikkou]

All positions of which are manned by people. People can be biased, have prejudices, have agendas, have special interests, be bribed, be blackmailed, be threatened, et cetera. In essence, people are a liability. Which ultimately means that any system with at least one person running it is liable to not perform as well as it should, or deviate from its purpose.

Parties, because of their self-important and self-interested natures, are a great way to open up a government to most (if not all) of the aforementioned liabilities.

I don't think it's a good system. Or, at the very least, it certainly can't live up to its own standards and ideals.

(And I don't believe I ever took a civics class. I don't even have a car license. ;p)

[Flannery]

Then in your opinion, what is the best form of government? You have aroused my curiosity.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I dunno. Whatever I can think up probably won't be any better or worse, really. Because, in the end, it just comes down to people. For instance, let's say that what we have is a good system. It's been around for over two-hundred years, and a lot of things happened since then, but some things, while they have changed, the fundamentals for them never did. Take, for example, the meaning of, "all men are created equal," as well as the other truths mentioned in the declaration of independence. But that didn't end slavery. And not too long after the establishment of the government, women lost their freedom to vote. Now, while the declaration of independence isn't the law, it's in part a moral backdrop for the constitution. The truths they spoke of was to reflect the values that would be adopted into governance. Despite that it took three-fourths of a century to end slavery, and even longer to get our civil rights in order. That's because people can interpret the same thing in different ways.

So it's not whether you have a dictator or a democracy that's the problem: it's the person or people governing you. If all dictators are bad, it's only because bad people become dictators. If a democracy is good, it's because those bound by the law adhere to said laws and act accordingly. That can go for monarchies, too, in both respects. A big reason for why there was an American revolution, was not only because of how King George III treated the colonies, but how he did so against the laws that he was bound by. Had he acted by the letter of the law, we probably would have been satisfied being colonies until the course of history decided it was time to change.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of placing a person, or a select few people, in charge of great masses. A position of power tends to attract the worst kinds of people. On the other side of the equation, the masses have a tendency to rely on figures and images too much, and often give a lot of slack on the power they give their leaders. Which often results in, let's say, calling a terrible president, who lies, makes a mockery of the constitution, and fails to do much of anything of lasting good, as just that: a terrible president. We can't hold him responsible for any of the wrongdoing that he did. He was just paving the road to Hell with good intentions. Aw, isn't that cute.

So, in the end, it's not the system that I care about, but whether or not it's working like it's supposed to. It's important that the governing and the governed have a rapport. Otherwise I could care less what form it takes.

But, since you're probably looking for a more revealing answer than that, what I'll say is that the best form of government, that I know of, is self-government: the governing of one's self. Anything beyond yourself is a trespass on another's freedom, which contradicts individual liberties. It's just another way of saying how you should keep it in your pants if it's not wanted by a second party. And I can draw the same message from both "pagan" and notable monotheistic beliefs, as well. So I think it's pretty sound.

[Flannery]

First rule of American Politics: Every president and public figure lies, and they will lie right to our face even after the truth is out.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Doesn't mean we should accept it. That's worse than the lie itself, and just encourages more of it, and worse. I'm pretty sure plenty of people in the government, now and in the past, have done worse things than lie. And sometimes they get caught... How many do not is anyone's guess.