By the way, I didn't mention anyone for President because I honestly can't think of anyone who can lead our nation from where we are with the inherent burdens of our two party system.

"Wrong! When elected the representatives make their on mind of political issues, and therefore they will be judged by their actions by the voter"

Wrong again. A "Democracy" strictly speaking, is the will of the people. A Democratic Republic (like we have here in the US) is where people elect representatives who are SUPPOSED to represent the people. If the people don't want something done, their elected representative (who is supposed to represent their wishes) SHOULDN'T vote for it. The problem is that the representatives know that they can spin propaganda and still get reelected even if they went against the will of the people simply because (sadly) most people don't pay much attention to what's going on. The informed people are drowned out by the ignorant masses.

"That´s exactly how things work in a democracy, otherwise nothing would be done. You have to make compromises and arranged with hundreds of other representatives to get one single majority."

The problem here is that compromises AREN'T getting done! In Health Care Reform, it was "my way or the highway" for representatives and senators who were essentially blackmailed into voting for it by the threat of no help getting reelected if they didn't. Tell me, how is that Democracy? The reps/sens were looking out for their own jobs by voting for it so they could get money to spin propaganda and get reelected.

Finally, a question for you Miro:

Let's assume I am a representative, and I got elected by a 51-49 margin in my district. I then go to Congress and vote along party lines for a bill that let's say 75% of my constituents don't want. They then don't reelect me. Now tell me, did I do a GOOD job representing my people?

My answer is NO. I did a shitty job representing my people because I didn't vote for what they wanted. It doesn't matter that they didn't reelect me, they still lost 2 years of representation because I ignored them.

"Wrong again. A "Democracy" strictly speaking, is the will of the people"

I´m speaking of the USA not Switzerland...

"Let's assume I am a representative, and I got elected by a 51-49 margin in my district. I then go to Congress and vote along party lines for a bill that let's say 75% of my constituents don't want. They then don't reelect me. Now tell me, did I do a GOOD job representing my people?"

Let´s assume from his vote profits the whole community, but they were manipulated by the media they can´t think clearly and vote against their interest. After two years they recognize the success of the political act and reelected the representive. Now tell me, did he do a GOOD job?My answer is YES!

"The problem here is that compromises AREN'T getting done! In Health Care Reform, it was "my way or the highway" for representatives and senators who were essentially blackmailed into voting for it by the threat of no help getting reelected if they didn't. Tell me, how is that Democracy?"

Last time: It is in the constitution, learn it! The world is not fair and not everybody gets what he wants. So is politics, but whining about a leck of fairness is naiv...

Really, rhino? No other suggestions? I suggested Gates/Buffett if you'll recall. Geez, dude. Read *all* the posts.

Obama/Clinton will do it, they survived the medias propaganda in 2008 and will do it another time in 2012

Wow Miro...just wow.

First: "I´m speaking of the USA not Switzerland..."

I mentioned that in my post. Look at the part that says Democratic Republic, I believe you'll find it in my post. In a Democratic Republic, the Representatives are *supposed* to be people who believe the same as their constituents. Thus, if their constituents disagree with a bill, so should the Representative and they should vote against it, not vote FOR it just because "I'm a Democrat or I'm a Republican so I have to because my party is". According to you though, it's ok for a Representative to be elected based on one set of principles but if their party votes a different way, they should too because after all, things don't get done unless the whole party always votes together right?

Second: You didn't answer my question. You completely changed the question to something that suited you. I ask again: If the people in my community want things one way, and I vote to do it another way, have I *Represented* them? No, I haven't, I went against their wishes.

rep·re·sent (rpr-znt)
tr.v. rep·re·sent·ed, rep·re·sent·ing, rep·re·sents
1.
a. To stand for; symbolize:

If you go against a group's express wishes, you have not symbolized them. You have symbolized yourself.

Third: WTF are you talking about? In the Constitution? What's in the Constitution? My comment about how politicians were getting "blackmailed" into voting for HCR? Oh wait you mean this:
"The world is not fair and not everybody gets what he wants. So is politics, but whining about a leck of fairness is naiv... "

I get it now, unfair politics is in the Constitution! Of course! Thank you for clearing that up so much!

If you truly believe that politicians should be people who only vote along party lines to "get things done" then you're part of the problem in this country. With only 2 parties (no significant 3rd party has made contributions in the recent past) we're going to be stuck in a partisan debate for all time if people think like you. If more people would actually listen to their constituents (who are WAY less partisan than the actual politicians) maybe things could "get done" without resorting to spitting in the fact of constituents.

*spitting in the face of constituents.

I'm with Miro on this one.

Drano, what you're describing is a full democracy, not a democratic republic, which the US is.

A rep. can't represent EVERY constitute, because they'll never all agree. So, a rep has two choices: go with the majority, or make the best decision based on the (probably more) info he has. If seem to think that a rep *must* go with the majority. This is simply a full democracy where fewer people need to vote. That's not what we have. The voters put their trust in reps, knowing that they may not always agree with every single thing they do.

@ Draugnar, don't like the way you presented yourself, but LOVED your recommendations for President.

But abgemacht-

The problem is that voters can't get what they want nowadays. With only 2 parties (and the two parties being so partisan), the voters tend to get either a loony liberal, or a cooky conservative. Why must it be that way? And since the two parties manipulate the media to discredit other opponents, a third party candidate rarely has a chance to break in and actually represent the people instead of a party.

It's a simple case of damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to voting.

How about the Sheriff out in Arizona (Tent City) for President and Rex Ryan of the Jets for Vice President.

+1 to drano019

I agree that there are issues, but it's a very complicated problem to fix.

What do people think of the Conservatives? Is the GOP likely to break up into two parties?

"I mentioned that in my post. Look at the part that says Democratic Republic"

And i ask me why? I was speaking of the USA the whole time and you came up with that "but strict democracy" thing...

"Second: You didn't answer my question. You completely changed the question to something that suited you."

Like you did with your question! My answer is a "twisted-clone" of your rethorical question, but i see it was to hard to understand for you...

"Third: WTF are you talking about? In the Constitution? What's in the Constitution? "

The "systems" rules for the democratic republic USA...
Now that you become personal, i am out of the discussion. I am a part of the problems of the USA? I am from Germany, stupid...

"I get it now, unfair politics is in the Constitution! Of course! Thank you for clearing that up so much!"

My god how old are you? Grow up, you are unworthy of this pathetic and polemic behavior.

Apparently Miro, it's was too hard for YOU to understand my sarcasm when I said the unfair politics in the Constitution. Of course I know the rules of Congress are in the Constitution. You must make it a habit to assume people are completely ignorant of everything. The debate was never about the "rules" but rather how the "rules" should be interpreted due to the two party system throwing policy making for a complete loop.

In all seriousness now, what question of yours did I twist like you did to mine? I don't seem to remember you asking me a question like I asked you.

As for the whole "So is politics, but whining about a leck of fairness is naiv... " thing, it's one thing to KNOW that politics is unfair. It's another to accept it. I refuse to accept that things have to be this way. Why should I accept that it's unfair and stop trying?

Finally, how am I supposed to know you're from Germany? I've never talked to you before and you didn't exactly state that you're from Germany earlier in the thread. Nor is it in your profile.

Miro, a democracy represents the people, not party agendas.

So when they all vote according to party lines, then that's not democracy, that's juvenile and unproductive and almost close to a political equivalent of "mine's bigger!" in terms of party numbers and the like.

See, that's it right there- party numbers.

Every single action they take, the news blares about how this will affect their chances at reelection.

Went to a play instead of staying home and watching TV? "Representative X today was accused by detractors of being too upsscale and out of touch with the common man, contrary to his public image of being just another average Joe, and with elections coming up..."

Or "Senator Y today apologized for previous remarks wherein he lauded the greatness of Abe Lincoln and suggested president Obama wasn't quite there yet. While the president himself admitted he had no ill will towards the remark, there was a considerable backlash from tthe LEft who calim his remarks were 'unfair' to the president and 'called into question his status as a liberal progressive.' Senator Y is running for reelection this year, and his popularity has dropped 6 in the polls since the comment, a considerable enough amount and large enough to let Candidate Liberal Party Dogmatist take over the lead from the incumbent."

Or "Arizona Representative Carlos Gonzalez was forced to suspend his campaign today after charges that he was, in fact, a Mexican immigrant. The evidence presented against Mr. Gonzalez include his name, skin tone, the fact he enjoys tequilla, that on June 11h, 2010, while out at lunch with a group of delegates who all ordered hamburgers, Mr. Gonzalez said he 'would prefer a taco' instead and ordered one, as well as the increasing claim 'Well, he jsut doesn't look like he's quite from here, does he?'" Mr. Gonzalez, enraged over the charges, had a fiery exchange with the media as he left his house, saying 'I am not an immigrant and this is *bleep*! There, is that American enough for you folks? Tis is *BLEEP*!'"

Couldn't resist, sorry. ;)

Democracy sucks. Why should I not get what I want simply because more people want something else? Anarchy is better.

Conservative Man, if you really do want anarchy, live an anarchist's life, as Sicarius does.

@CM - why should you get what you want just because you want it. You need to want it more *and* you need to work for it and earn it. Only then will you'll get it.

@Draug - I was talking about desicion making. Why should I lose, simply becasue more people want something else. People should make all their own desicions so they get what they want desicion-wise, and that's only possible in anarchy.

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.