You are still looking at the picture through the eyes of the type of government with which you all are comfortable. It sounds to me like "If you were just like us you'd be happier."

A needlessly patronising remark I feel. I'm quite able to distinguish between the overarching theme of the thread and a tangential conversation about a particular point thanks. In fact, you're the one who took us off down this conversational cul de sac in the first place by ignoring the bigger picture observation both Ricky and I made and focusing on your own narrow perspective from involvement in low level activism in Maryland.

The point, btw, which you haven't really addressed, is that if you're going to have a very partisan two-party system it helps to have a mechanism which allows the governing party to govern. The American system doesn't do that in the current political climate because in order to be able to govern you need control of all 3 branches of the federal government plus a sympathetic majority on the Supreme Court, which is virtually impossible to get and even harder to maintain. Historically your system has worked out ok because there was a tradition of independence among the politicians which allowed for compromise deals to be struck, but that's getting harder and harder as the extreme wings take over their parties through the primaries. In theory your system is fine. It's been a roaring success by many measures. In practice though I think you're just starting to see the flaws. In 2016 Barack Obama will look back on the last 4 years of his government and probably see almost nothing of significance having been achieved. That's partly a reflection on him of course, but it's also a reflection of a dysfunctional political system.

Sassenach, Rickp, et. al.: I wish that all of what you gentlemen have said...was untrue. The jingoist in me, that I think is harbored in all those who love their country, wants to believe your points are false. But the "real" patriot in me--a real patriot being someone who can criticize their own country because they love it so much they want to fix it--says that much of what you have said is spot-on.

However, as for getting us off on a tangent or a "conversational cul-de-sac" as you very elegantly put it, would you please explain what you mean by: my own narrow perspective from involvement in low-level activism in Maryland? I'm really dying to know exactly what you mean by those words. Do you mean the kind of activism that causes me to get blisters on my feet, and painful burns on my arms and face from the summer sun, as a result of walking through several neighborhoods in the same day, door-to-door, in order to get a particular candidate elected to public office, or disseminate knowledge of a pressing public issue to voters? Or, do you mean the kind in which I had the guts [to put it politely] to risk utter humiliation by participating, at all of twenty years of age, in a debate before the League of Women Voters against eight other candidates much older and more politically-experienced than myself? That sort of Low-Level Activism?

You can focus (or obsess) on two party systems and theoretical structures all you want. You can talk down to me like you have been doing all you want. But when one has actually participated in the system enough to know what one is talking about, even as a mere Low-Level Activist, not just looking at this or that website which gives only a two-dimensional view of things, one might actually have a different enough perspective on things to see the truth in a different light. I do not say this in a blind and jingoistic fashion but in a desire to cure my country's ills.

I do not mean to brag, but rest assured gentlemen, as long as there are such Low-Level Activists like me and certain of my friends, the United States of America will never be, nor will it become, a dysfunctional political system. I am not upset you call it dysfunctional. But I am however, a little disappointed in the way some of you have presented your arguments. I expected better. Take that as a compliment.

All right, enough said on that subject! Now--since you so dislike the tangent which WE have gone off on--can we get back to the original intent of this thread, in which I was trying to "gather information" from people whom I thought would know for real, because they are actually there? (I could, of course, be wrong about that, now...)

Martyrdom suits some people, I guess.

hacker

I do not mean to brag, but rest assured gentlemen, as long as there are such Low-Level Activists like me and certain of my friends, the United States of America will never be, nor will it become, a dysfunctional political system.

there have always been low level poicial activisits in the US Hacker. That hasn't stopped your nations governance system from becoming what it is today. And that is largely dysfunctional.
Now, since I could quote thousands of American commentators and academics who use this description, i'll point out that it has nothing to do with my being Canadian.Its a very widely held view.

If you read with an open mind you would have seen that those of us you corresponded with were critical of our own systems failings . And although I don't think you need to actually participate in low level activism to understand them ...I think you should be aware that some of your correspondents have shared time in the low level activist trenchs. (Danivon stood for office for one. I was a riding vice president of a political party ....) So get off thy high horse.

Not just as a candidate, but I was elected as a local councillor in 2000, serving until 2004. But I didn't need that to google how Maryland's Boards of Elections were selecteed. They may not set the boundaries but they do run the elections.

I spent a year as a Parliamentary assistant to a very high profile member of the Conservative Party back in the late 90s. So I'd like to think I have a pretty decent insight from personal experience as well. I didn't see the need to mention it but if we're all experience-dropping...

Lol ok you have a point there about the martyrdom. Perhaps I got a little carried away. And I think Sassenach knew I would probably react precisely like that.

And, great Sassenach, I'd almost be convinced of your insight into the United States...if you worked for somebody in Washington, not Ottawa. After all it's the US that has the problem here right? How does working for the Conservative Party tell you how things work in the US?

Ok then what would you suggest we do? I never liked to obsess with things I cannot personally control or instantly change. Only do what I can to make things better. Do you expect me to run for governor?

I'll start taking donations now. Checks or soft money, doesn't matter.

One thing I have to add: if there is anything that will insidiously destroy the political system of the United States, or anything making it truthfully dysfunctional, it is voter apathy and lack of participation. You are looking at things on the surface. Some things that are dangerous to a political order are beneath the surface and more dangerous as well as harder to identify. One of you very observantly noticed that voter turnout in primaries is about 12%. From the numbers in the recent primary that's about accurate.

Tell me a way to fix that problem and I'm all ears. There is no legislation passable in the General Assembly in Annapolis, or by the Congress in Washington, that will be a quick fix for that.

Now I had started this thread in order to learn things. If I reacted in any way that anyone feels is wrong, you have my apology. Perhaps I felt a little talked down to at times and I reacted to that, instead of properly ignoring it.  I it is in any way my fault I apologize. I myself feel that there are "faults on both sides" but I won't press that point. I certainly had no intent to get us off on a "conversational cul-de-sac" as one of you put it.

All right now: may I please at least ask a few questions? That was my intent in posting this thread, so that I could learn a few things I was unclear on. I think we should just move on. Your points are quite taken.

Sass: you said you worked for a prominent member of the Conservative Party in the 1990s. You obviously have a store of knowledge on the Canadian system I do not so perhaps you could be of help.

When you go to vote in Canada, how many candidates are on the ballot in a federal election? There is only one office being contested on such ballot at once right? I am not entirely sure if EB listed all the parties current in Canada in 2014, just the Conservative Party (and the Progressive Conservatives), the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party. So, is the "winner" the candidate with "the most votes" (i.e., a "plurality" but not necessarily a "simple majority" at least? or do you have "runoff elections" as do the French?)

And, great Sassenach, I'd almost be convinced of your insight into the United States...if you worked for somebody in Washington, not Ottawa. After all it's the US that has the problem here right? How does working for the Conservative Party tell you how things work in the US?

I didn't make any such claim. In fact I didn't even mention my previous experience at all until it started to become an issue. That said though, if you can't see how having direct personal experience of working at the sharp end of Parliamentary politics gives me useful insight for commenting on a thread like this, and if you can't comprehend how the sort of person who would do that might also have a keen interest in politics across the pond, then I'm really not sure what it is you're looking for.

And I'm British btw.

I remember now, you and Danivon are from the UK not Canada (Ricky is the Canadian). Sorry I did not mean to mix up your countries. (LOL, OK, so we are as bad at geography as National Geographic surveys say we are!)

Yes, of course I can see how working in politics, of *any* country's political system, can give one a special insight (that's why I asked about Canada just now, even though I should have asked about the United Kingdom, instead) as well as your obviously having such an interest in the subject in the first place. On your side of the pond or ours. I understand. I was not trying to bring our respective experiences into light, in the wise of bragging about them like I did. It's just that after that remark about "low-level activism", I kind of got offended. I put a lot of effort into what I have done politically--just as you have I'm sure!---and being proud of myself and the accomplishments I have made it did not feel very good to have some of you assert the system was dysfunctional. I felt as if you were just short of saying "Geeze, Hacker, why do you bother to participate in it when it's such a sham?" Perhaps I *took* the remark the wrong way; if not, I still should have just ignored the precise wording, and taken it in stride, and heck, maybe you did not really intend it as an insult after all. And, even worse, if you were/are right about that & I did not listen, I'm obviously not the scholar I had thought I was. (Actually I am not, come to think of it, I am a college dropout and not a graduate. So at the end of the day I guess I really don't know $h*t compared to most politically active people, in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada or....wherever.)

Personally, I plan to keep on participating in the [apparently-broken] system on our side of the pond but South of the 48th parallel (i.e., the United States). Had a good chat with the candidate I supported just now, and I told him to keep me around and even hang out with me over the next four years (alas, it's every four years, not every two, for the House of Delegates...in fact for everybody in the State it's all at once, every four years). Broken or not, an apathetic attitude toward it on my part will not repair it. Even if the electorate or the whole body of registered voters is what Smith/Bueno de Mesquita call the "Nominal Selectorate", I still believe less voter apathy would = a better state and federal government under which to live.

Look, if this thread went a little sour, like I said, I AGAIN apologize for any part in so doing, or for any bitter remarks on my part. Please, however, let's not rehash that, what's said is said and I cannot strike anything incendiary from the record that I wish I hadn't said thus far. I hope we can move on. I trust I'm not the only one on Redscape who has ever let his remarks get a little emotional; but that is of course no excuse to succumb to it myself. I admitted to being a little smug and hard-headed already, and already apologized for that.

Nonetheless, whether the fault is "not within [my] stars but within [myself]" to paraphrase Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, can we please try to move on now? Obviously I have a keen interest in politics, too, on--as you put it--my side of the pond or yours. Can you please forgive me for letting my emotions get the better of me and let's move on? I do have a few questions to ask & promise I will ask them (and any counter-questions) in a non-smug, intellectual and open-minded manner. OK?

Since you are in the UK, Sassenach, I would value your opinion/your facts on this one question.

After looking at the House of Lords website, I found it from the UK Parliament website, I am still a little lost as to the remaining utility of the House of Lords.

We learned in high school (a public one believe it not, not a private one, they had a western history class) that the Magna Carta required the King of England to summon a Great Council, and come to it, cap in hand, to ask their "permission" for tax increases. And that eventually it was called Parliament, and divided itself into a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

Why did its members divide into the two current "houses" of Parliament, back in the middle ages/that era?

And what is its enduring utility, that is still exists? There have been other countries which have abolished their upper house (New Zealand for example).

Also, I do promise not to argue with your answer, OK?

hacker

One thing I have to add: if there is anything that will insidiously destroy the political system of the United States, or anything making it truthfully dysfunctional, it is voter apathy and lack of participation.

The major reason most people don't choose to vote is that they don't think that their vote matters.
When the law makers are unresponsive to their constituents that attitude tends to develop over time. And the major reason that law makers don't have time for their constituents is that they are either out raising campaign money from the people with deep pockets, for their never ending campaigning ...or working for the corporations that they hope will hire them as well paid lobbyists as a pay off for writing freindly laws ....
If there is anything that is destroying the political system in the US (and in other countries, but less dramatically or effectively) its money.
Public campaign financing , tough sunset laws that stop elected officialsfrom becoming lobbyists for 10 years, and more stingent regulations on lobbying could save the system. But that won't happen....
Other parts of the world will lead on major issues, like changing industry to adapt to the changing climate and energy problems, and American corporations will change to compete with them. (In fact this is already beginning to happen.)

hacker

I am still a little lost as to the remaining utility of the House of Lords.

You are not alone.

hacker

When you go to vote in Canada, how many candidates are on the ballot in a federal election?

Canada has a first past the post electoral system and elections are called at the federal and provincial level when the government loses the confidence of the hosue or when their mandate runs out. So it varies. Municipal elections are generally fixed dates.
In any riding you can have a large number of candidates from a large number of parties on the ballot.
Almost always you'll see the major parties, Liberal ,Conservative, NDP and very often Green and in Quebec The Bloc Quebecoise. But I've seen as many as 8 additional parties plus several independents on ballots I've marked.

But I've seen as many as 8 additional parties plus several independents on ballots I've marked.

Holy $h*tsnacks, dude. That's as many as THIRTEEN distinct candidates to choose between. And first past the post means "the most votes" right? (by that I mean a "plurality" is sufficient; greater than 50% not necessary)

Sounds like Canadians like to keep their elections nice and simple, eh? Us Yanks don't care for all the nifty, electoral innovations such as Proportional Representation or Preferential numbering, etc. The guy I canvassed for last year for re-election to his seat on the college park city council was saying they ought to do that in one of the little cities' municipal elections in his area. I told him "Dude, when it comes to voting, Americans do NOT do complicated." That in itself is nothing to do with lower turnout or lesser intelligence, we're just not used to voting like that. Voter turnout would be twice as puny with such...complexities

But in some countries it works. I tried to read the explanation, in English, on the Japanese Diet website and it made my head spin. To each his own I suppose.

The UK is also the most votes in a "constituency" wins, right? No runoffs either?

If there are so many parties running for a single seat in your single-member ridings; what's the winner of the vote usually get? I mean, percentage wise, what does the winning percentage usually look like what with a large number of parties like that? What are the usual numbers if there's only 4 or 5 instead? Are there ridings that are definitely "safe seats" for one party, or another, depending on the general ideology of the citizens voting in that riding?

Your Legislative Assemblies (of the provinces) are generally unicameral, correct? Only one of ours is (NE).

hacker

That in itself is nothing to do with lower turnout or lesser intelligence, we're just not used to voting like that. Voter turnout would be twice as puny with such...complexities

Hacker you realize that in a Presidential election you actually aren't directly voting for a particular candidate right? That you are voting for his slate of candidates for the "Electoral college". And that the Electoral college actual elects the President. And that once elected a memebr of the electoral college can decide to vote anyway he wants.... (It has happened in the past, for instance where George Wallace got an extra elctoral college vote this way...)
Who says you don't do complex or even "arcane".

hacker

And first past the post means "the most votes" right? (by that I mean a "plurality" is sufficient; greater than 50% not necessary)

Yes. But this is the same as in most American elections except a few states, where there is a runoff between the top two candidates if no cadidate gets a majority.
So why is this surprising?