(October 7, 2012 at 9:33 am)cratehorus Wrote: Originally (in america atleast) term limits started, because FDR ended the great depression, and strangled hitler with his bare hands, all while secretly being a cripple, with polio. The official argument was "no matter what FDR did, the events that surrounded his presidency made him more popular than he deserved to be" (think george bush jr september 11th 2001)The argument is a bogus one in that case. If the 2008 election had been George Bush vs Obama, do you think Bush would have won? Whilst Sarah Palin's negative effect on the McCain campaign is clear, one of the other main reasons he lost is because people thought he was too much like Bush. My point being, one can only ride such events for so long.
Quote:I agree, because there is no one man, that can cause enormous amounts of change, all by himself, no matter how charismatic or devious he might be. One myth I've always hated was that if it wasn't for hitler (all by himself) WW2 would have never happened, the german military propped this man up, I doubt, he was even their first pick for "fuhrer"........ same thing with Joseph Stalin, or George Washington, or Sarah Palin, they merely represented a large group of people that existed whether you "like it or not"Certainly, although it must be said that Hitler used very subtle tactics to bend people to his will. The power of the Nazi propaganda machine cannot be denied. A lot of Nazis were good people, and were simply caught up in the feeling of belonging to some group. If you have the time, read up on "The Third Wave" experiment, or watch the short film ("The Wave") about it. It demonstrates that even democratic societies can fall to fascism.
Quote:I agree, again even though it's a little fatalistic, or karma-tastic for an atheist. I do believe no leader, can be a bad leader.Could you expand on this?
Quote:the bottom line is, things like term limits, jerrymandering, or the electoral college, are distractions. Here in america, congressman have no term limits, yet the office of President does?......... and every country has their own strange, seemingly, nonsensical rules. Right wingers and left wingers can abuse these systems equally (or rather right and left wingers can complain about how the other is using the system against them.) but in reality very, very little change can come from altering, re-writing, or reorganizing these systemsI disagree completely. Changing voting system affects the vote dramatically, as does drawing the election boundaries using a fair method. Getting rid of the electoral college and using popular vote instead (in some AV format) would certainly change the outcome of elections. In the past, 3 presidential elections have occurred where the loser actually gained the popular vote. For a load of great videos on the subject, I suggest CGP Grey:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
