The Moonlight Café

[Autumnwolf17]

Well we do have good safety and a big army... And nukes. My country would still be able to destroy your country

[Ratburntro44]

Oh dear that's not very good.

Don't worry, he's wrong about that.

First off, let's look here...



Whoah.

The biggest problem is that the congress is more focused on stopping Obama than actually getting stuff done. At my state's congress, they caused a government shutdown and eventually forced the governor to "borrow" from schools. Luckily, this year, the people figured out you shouldn't trust the party whose branch in your state went bankrupt and got very nearly evicted to balance the government's budget.

They even admitted they introduced the marriage amendment (which was defeated) just to try and bring in more Republican voters. Seriously. How ridiculous.

The funniest part is that Obama is only a tad more less conservative than Romney. They're both conservatives.

[Autumnwolf17]

Romney would have been way better for t he economy.

[Xtermy]

Well we do have good safety and a big army... And nukes. My country would still be able to destroy your country

Why does any discussion about safety or security with an American has to come down to said American assuring his country can destroy his companion's country?

[Autumnwolf17]

my country will never be american but it is nice and powerful here

[tonyy4]

Romney would have been way better for t he economy.

if you don't mind not having financial aid to help you through college good luck with romney
with romney we would have to pay with our own money

[Ratburntro44]

Romney would have been way better for t he economy.

Romney is against teacher's unions, supports inane measures of performance-based pay in public schools (sounds good in theory, really just means suckups (who are generally worse teachers) get paid more), thinks seniority should not be involved in teacher layoff decisions, and is against efforts to lower classroom size. Not only would that kill the future, that would directly impact me; in that my parents, both teachers, would have their income and job security drastically lowered. So why would I want to support someone who would destroy my family, let alone the country?

[shivasisters]

Romney would have been way better for t he economy.

Romney is against teacher's unions, supports inane measures of performance-based pay in public schools (sounds good in theory, really just means suckups (who are generally worse teachers) get paid more), thinks seniority should not be involved in teacher layoff decisions, and is against efforts to lower classroom size. Not only would that kill the future, that would directly impact me; in that my parents, both teachers, would have their income and job security drastically lowered. So why would I want to support someone who would destroy my family, let alone the country?

nicely said, i agree
i didn't do my research but i do know just a little and now i know more
thanks goodness he didn't win then
i was ganna vote but i didn't next i need to vote for sure

[Autumnwolf17]

I'm a magic wolf.

[necrocat219]

Step 1: Remove all individuals representing political parties

Step 2: Remove idea of individual parties and replace with idea of one uniformed government to focus on the countries problems

Step 3: (Rather than a government) Set up a forum where anyone can participate in debates but your reputation is based on how others rate your opinion. However much you can rate someone should be decided by how active you are on the forums (your rating has no effect to remove bias)with a short timeout (week or so of no activity?).

Rating is something that happens all year round. Elections would be abolished. Ratings may be wiped every 4 years if saw fit

Step 4: Make rating-scams illegal and possible to jail both the ratee and the organisation of raters. Make it illegal to advertise debaters for rating (alternative to voting)

Step 4: Create a ''Master Forum'' where only the best rated debators can take part in discussions of the respective country's future e.g. 300 people? This would reduce spamming and biased oppinions to a minimum with only carefully constructed arguments posted. Normal rules apply and the members can get kicked out at any time.

Solutions it provides:
Does it stop politics being about having the best individual representative politician? Yes
Does it focus more on the needs of the country that fighting for power? Yes again
Does it prevent idiots who have no idea about politics vote for stuff they don't even know they are voting for? It rewards those most interested in the forum or even active at all on the forum, so yes
Is it a democracy? Everyone still has an equal right to vote, so YES; if you know more about politics and get more involved you have a stronger vote

Weaknesses: Its on the computer. As it's mostly accepted that everyone has a computer and you only need so many people debating, I don't see this as a weakness

I don't see why a perfectly reasonable solution like the above decides what our countries do >:( At least in the UK (And I'm pretty sure in america too) to a large amount of the public its a ''best personality wins'' competition... I say scrap having individuals represent parties and stop recommending idiots who aren't interested in politics to vote at a minimum.