what do you mean "more stable politically" ? the US's system of ruling has been alive longer than any of the systems of ruling of the countries you've mentioned, and has not been seriously shaken even once since the end of the 18th century when US declared independence it's been the same constitution without serious amendments and with the same system of government since the beginning
Oh I do remember something like the civil war, civil right riots, women’s rights marches, ect, many of the countries I mention never had a civil war and had civil rights and women’s rights equalized legally decades before the USofA and generally have less public protest in their capitals.
but has the Constitution been majorly redrafted as a result of any of these? (except the 1st one you've mentioned)
Maybe this will happen. But it's going to take a Constitutional amendment to do it, and that's not small beans.
Politically speaking the most stable western democracy is most likely Japan, she has only had one government change. The same liberal party has been in power except in 93-94. The US is not by any measure the best system or democracy in the world. If we take a measure I believe the best democracy in the world is Finland.
I'm in Arizona and I'll be doing my part ot make sure that happens! To be honest though, opinion polls aside, I really don't see this state falling into the hands of the democrats any time soon. . . it's just too. . . westerny. Buncha' cowboys in pickuptrucks laughin' and braggin' whenever we bomb them durn towelheads!
That's for sure. It'd take one hell of a screw up to leave a legacy of complete ineptness like Bush is creating every day he's in office. And I'm not talking about the "getting head from an intern" sort of fuckup (wow how I wish that were the worst of our nation's troubles again!) I mean something that can top invading a nation on false pretenses and then shrugging it off, lying to the entire nation, and just holding up a package of mentos to make it better, and don't get me started on domestic policy! Handing the nation over to the religious right wasn't real a real winner in my book. Kerry may not be some shining golden boy, and he’s certainly as sneaky as any politician but at least he believes in a foreigner policy that won’t have our former allies turning their backs on us in disgust, and I doubt that he’ll use God as his justification for his domestic policies. That’s something at least.
when talking about stability, it's not how long 1 party has been in power, but how long the system of government has stayed in power. Japan's system has been around since the end of WWII so has Finalnd's while in the US the parties keep changing every once in a while, the Constitution has remained practically the same for over 200 years, except for minor amendments which is the factor i use in determining stability
No what stability means is that the democratic system is balanced. In the US corruption, illegal campaign contributions, a president appointed by the Supreme Court, etc. This not the stalwart of a democracy. If you want to play the most stable western democracy by years by far it's the UK. The US has been relatively stable, but it is not the most. It has its major flaws, and I think you are going to be the only one (as usual) to actually deny this. The facts bore out that today Finland and other states are the best democracies in the world. If EI_Sparks was here he would tell you about the direct democracy that they have in Switzerland. American democracy compared to others, leaves much to be desired.
otheadp, Let me put it this way: the USofA was the first democracy in over 1000 years, during its 200 years of existence other nations have developed democracies based off the USofA and many having the wisdom of more modern progress have create democracies superior in political and government structure to the USofA. To put it in simple terms the USofA is like the Intel 286: out of date and archaic but still view as a major point of progress. To summarize change is good, changing the constitution is not a bad thing, if we had not changed it before women would still be inferior, many people would be marked as sub-human slaves and savages good only for killing, and worst of all many would still be wearing those ugly white wigs!
nico, i didn't say US was the best democracy, i said it was the most stable. i'm not denying there is corruption, for there is corruption everywhere because no system is perfect as far as "the best democracy", there are many, and each one is a little different, with its own pluses and minuses fetus, your Intel 286 analogy is not completly accurate. as times change, so do laws. but the system that brings these laws to life, removes other laws from life, is still the same
otheadp, The government has changed laws and regulations on its self repeatedly, for example a amendment was passed in 1951 that a president could not server more then 2 terms. why could an amendment not be made that would dismantle the electoral college?
it could, of course i did say that the Constitution hasn't been changed significantly the slight amendments in the Constitution were changed legaly
i don't know about the UK .. when was the power transfered from the royalty to the government? i might be mistaken, but i think up a century ago or a little longer, the royalty had the final say in the UK and it's changed since then if so, then the US in its form has been around longer
Whirlwind opines, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It shows that the Bush NeoCon(rats) fooled "everybody!" Herr Goebbel's could have learnt a thing or two from the BUSHWACKERS! Whirlwind, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It may be that the Iraq situation has become so bad that neither Bush nor Kerry will be able to fix it quickly and easily. However, there are other important issues in America besides Iraq. The environment, for instance. If Bush and Cheney have their way, the entire State of Alaska will become one giant oil well, the National Forests will become National Lumber Yards, and pollution will return to the levels of the 1960s. Kerry can and will halt and reverse those trends. The economy, for another example. Bush is completely in the pocket of a handful of wealthy men. Between them they have discovered a way for the U.S. economy to grow without creating any new jobs. This is short-term thinking, of course, but a brain the size of Bush's is incapable of looking more than fifteen minutes into the future, and his corporate buddies are so downright evil that they figure once they've destroyed America they'll just take over Europe or Australia and start fresh. Kerry may be a professional politician, but at least he understands that there is a long term and that America must have jobs. He'll probably bring back inflation and high mortgage and credit card interest rates, but that's better than unemployment. And speaking of Iraq, the only reason we're there (aside from the Bush Dynasty's personal vendetta against Saddam) is so that Cheney's corporate buddies can make a fortune on petroleum. Kerry does not have those ties to the industrial slimeballs. He could order all the troops home, let the Iraqis go back to hating each other like they always have, and live to see the next sunrise, something Bush can't do. There are important differences between the candidates if you can look past Iraq.
And speaking of Iraq, the only reason we're there (aside from the Bush Dynasty's personal vendetta against Saddam) is so that Cheney's corporate buddies can make a fortune on petroleum I disagree, surely those played a factor but this administration is ideological. They really want to change the face of the ME to suit their needs and those of Israel. Iraq is highly symbolic, and it is benefical (in theory) for the US to have democracies in the ME. Sadly I don't think the US would enjoy another bunch of Islamic theocracies in place of secular bath'ists.
A system of government may stay in power for ages yet be prone to fragile coalitions, snap elections, hung parliaments, electoral fraud, disputed elections, etc, etc. This is not a picture of stability.
