The political ideology of anarchy matches definition C. According to the unfallible source wikipedia: Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its idea of freedom as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale industrial state capitalism or state-sponsored corporatism, and the political corruption that came with their successes.
Yes, as this poll displays, the majority of Americans do not have any of this "common sense" you speak of.
Dave...we could really say the same thing about the Dems and their obsession over Bush "stealing" the election in 2000...even though that's not what happened at all. But, of course, facts are overlooked for ideological reasons, and this is yet another reason why both political parties, and their constituents for that matter, completely and utterly suck and do nothing to actually assist the American republic nor the American people. We need more choices. Viable choices, not ones that are simply there to bow down to one of the two major parties. The ol' switcheroo isn't giving us a choice, it's just pulling the ol' switcheroo and giving off the illusion of actual choice.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_the_votes_were_recounted_in_florida.html Any side that loses an election by less than a thousand votes has a case because of how votes are counted. But to believe ACORN could swing millions of votes is absurd.
yeah the electoral college, but I feel we dont have a need for it anymore. We are past the need for that. People can make their own informed decisions now, it was only needed when people didnt ahve internet, TV, basically communication. That and the electoral college is supposed to go with the popular vote, but many times they really dont, even when their decision was steeply opposed.
While true, the electoral college does stymies the power of the most populous states from controllng the election. The electoral votes give smaller states a relatively greater representation, in my view a good thing, as the needs and wants of populous areas will not always correspond with those in more rural areas. I believe both needs and wants need to be considered, and thus find the electoral college handy, in that respect.
The electoral college was set up back when common people were uninformed about politics and the founding fathers felt that they should not be the ones making the decisions for the country. I'd like to think today's society is a little more informed and can make rational decisions on who they feel their leader should be, but the Internet has shown me some ridiculously stupid people who I definitely would not want having an actual say in the fate of America. There's definitely pros and cons with sticking with the electoral college but I'd have to say the good outweighs the bad, mainly for the reason Fletch brought up about the electoral college keeping smaller and larger states on a relatively equal playing field compared to a popular vote only election.
This is the exact reason why a popular vote wouldn't work, politicians would skip over the states with a small population, sticking to the larger ones to get more votes
yeah they do mainly because bigger states have more electoral votes, which are influenced by voters, who are influenced by politicians and their lies
Hahaha, ohhh I completely agree! To me it's more of my "in a perfect world" train of thought. Still I do believe in the core principals, and feel it is the only sure fire way to protect the liberty, and personal freedom of the individual. Though more likely a fanciful dream, it is one that I would hope could one day prevail over a more level headed society.
You could say a communist society also uses that mentality. IF the ruling party is nice enough to allow it's people rights stated in the constitution for example, then it would be a great society because then hard decisions would be made quickly and decisively, which may save a nation in trouble. Also because then there would be no republican party opposing everything any other party does.
