Hugh Said:

Have you ever seen a party so affraid of and spend so much time on the VP candidate?

We Answered:

they hate her because she is a down home, white, honest, heterosexual female that doesn't believe in killing babies. everything a lib hates.

Terry Said:

What would you think of having a parliament instead of the House?

We Answered:

It's a good question, but you're getting a little confusing government systems with electoral systems.

A parliament is a legislature where some of the legislators also form the executive branch of the government. In a parliament, a few members of parliament (the leadership of the governing party or coalition) become the prime minister and cabinet ministers. They remain legislators, and still vote on bills, but they also oversee the agencies of the government bureaucracy, and are responsible for translating law into national policy. If we switched to a parliamentary system, we would not only change the structure of the lower house of the legislature, but abolish the presidency and the Cabinet as it currently exists, and replace it with a prime minister, a cabinet of MPs, and a president who would have no day-to-day political power.

What you're talking about is a proportional representation system, which is an electoral system. In a PR system, seats are allocated to larger regions than single-member districts. Each multi-member district (MMD) gets a number of seats, and seats are awarded based on party vote, and you vote for a slate of candidates. So, if a MMD has 20 seats, and the Democrats win 55% of the vote, the Republicans get 40%, and the Greens get 5%, then the Dems would get 11 seats, the GOP 8, and the Greens would get 1 seat.

Not all parliamentary democracies use PR. The United Kingdom, for example, has single-member districts like the USA, where each district gets one seat, and whoever has the most votes wins the seat. In the UK, party discipline is higher -- the parties control who get on the ballot, etc., which is a common trait in parliamentary systems, but the USA electoral system resembles that of the UK in many respects.

So, we could adopt PR for distributing House seats, and it would probably allow multiple parties to flourish, rather than a fixed two-party system, but that wouldn't make us parliamentary. It would just be a change of electoral systems. Overall, I think the idea is sound, and overdue. There are too many wasted votes in our system.

Eva Said:

Would the USA be better off if more political parties contested the races for President, Congress or Senate?

We Answered:

In many ways it would be better. The problem lies with the parties and the institutional politician that derives their power with the rules currently established. You need to look at the statistics that show the power an incumbent has in the current process to understand why they loathe even this discussion of a deviation of the two party system.

Now, tie that with the legalized bribery that takes place with pork spending (Dems adding billions to a war bill to get anti-war dems to go along, Republicans spending like drunken sailors to keep their hold on liberal voting regions) and you begin to see whey they don't want to discuss making changes.

Think how complicated it would for them if they had to deal with 10 parties rather then two?

Joann Said:

Why are Democrats trying to replace an elected black candidate with a white one?

We Answered:

Why does race always have to enter it? A few years ago one white guy was elected as President but they stuck another one in office. Nothing surprises me any more.

Maxine Said:

Do Libertarians or Greens run for the Congress of the US?

We Answered:

Yes they do - every year.
And I think that's a question a LOT of people will be asking themselves the coming election years!

Guy Said:

Why is the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Pennsylvania anti-abortion?

We Answered:

Yikes!!
Santorum voted himself a raise about 6 times,
while voting against raising minimum wage.