Should UNO take off Veto power ?

There's a reason for the terms, as well. You can't expect a government to be at all effective if the leaders and representatives are changed every time the populace decide things are exactly as they'd like. The elected leaders need time to enact their policies and try to make things work... I'd venture so far as to say that 4 years, in the current system, might not even be enough, especially when the opposition hold the Legislative Branch.

RedOranje wrote:There's a reason for the terms, as well. You can't expect a government to be at all effective if the leaders and representatives are changed every time the populace decide things are exactly as they'd like. The elected leaders need time to enact their policies and try to make things work... I'd venture so far as to say that 4 years, in the current system, might not even be enough, especially when the opposition hold the Legislative Branch.

The problem you then get is figuring out how long is too long for a single presidential term. Most countries have 4-5 years since it seems to be the norm, but as you say it is most likely too short. 7-8 years a term might actually be more appropriate, but then you get into murky waters with people getting too accustomed to power. It's a lose-lose situation in my eyes, maybe we should just go back to have a monarchy is each country

Yes, I can see how the whole "growing accustomed to power" issue is avoided with monarchies and all.

RedOranje wrote:Yes, I can see how the whole "growing accustomed to power" issue is avoided with monarchies and all.

That's why i put the " " at the end of my post, get with the times Red

RedOranje wrote:It's nothing to do with "government systems and techniques," mate. First and foremost, approval ratings tend to be unreliable at best and outright lies at worst. They are simply tools of the media to stir up discussion and gain viewers/readers/attention. Second, the US government is set up in such a way that, should the majority of the populace become unhappy with it, they have the power and chance to change the government and those employed by it via non-violent and organized means... you know, elections.

it's set up in a way that you just get to pick the other flavor, to go from chocolate to vanilla so to speak or vice versa. and most importantly the presidential elections aren't decided by the populace. also, the election system has structurally made it almost impossible for a third party to have the opportunity of a legitimate competition (on the national level). we hail our "democracy" and "freedom" in our country and we do have a good amount of both. The problem is our democratic institutions (specifically federal govt) don't function much at all (see budget deficit standoff of 2011, minority party filibustering, etc.). so if the people are tired of chocolate and vanilla, and they decide they want strawberry instead, they cant have it.

You're talking out your arse, lad.

There is nothing in the Constitution that holds back third parties. It's the populace that has put those limitations in place. Third parties had clear chances up until the World Wars and the increasing trend toward the two primary parties is purely down to the way the populace has voted over the decades. Even today, if those people that love to complain channeled all of their energy into changing things rather than complaining about how horrible the two-party system is they could find enough support to make a strong showing with a third party. However, these people that dislike the two-party system are of very varied political beliefs and many are too preoccupied with whining to actually try to make a difference.

It doesn't help that most don't even understand how the US government is organized and run.

RedOranje wrote:You're talking out your arse, lad.

There is nothing in the Constitution that holds back third parties. It's the populace that has put those limitations in place. Third parties had clear chances up until the World Wars and the increasing trend toward the two primary parties is purely down to the way the populace has voted over the decades. Even today, if those people that love to complain channeled all of their energy into changing things rather than complaining about how horrible the two-party system is they could find enough support to make a strong showing with a third party. However, these people that dislike the two-party system are of very varied political beliefs and many are too preoccupied with whining to actually try to make a difference.

no im not talking out of my arse lol.


and really, i dont disagree with much of what else you said. only that the people who dislike the two-party system are preoccupied with whining about it to make a difference is because it is structurally too difficult to (as i previously alluded to). it's an amazing accomplishment just to get on the ballot in all 50 states

RedOranje wrote:It doesn't help that most don't even understand how the US government is organized and run.

that too...