Seriously: is the Nation too big to stay under one government? Or...

[Tyler Durden]

Can the system change to fit new and altered circumstances?

Reality states that the "King of the Hill" will not stay on top forever; if we insist on this, isn't our unpleasant demise inevitable?

What's going to happen, and what should be done?

[savemefromdumbya]

1. devolve power away from Washington

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Give the fundies one part of the country,

and everyone else who is attached to reality the rest.

[bryant69]

3. Tear each other apart in an orgy of murderous violence

But I suppose that's too much to hope for.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bowens43]

4. What 'new and altered circumstances'?

What should be done its that we abide by the Constitution. They got it right first time.

[ThomWV]

5. Communications and Transportation Are The Only Limitations For Us

We have adequate resources (if used) to defend our borders, we have no problem providing for a common currency, we are not viewed as split for diplomatic purposes. So why on earth would we split? We have the ability to communicate and there are no bars to transportation from one part of the country to another.

So overall I think this discussion is silly.

[Uncle Joe]

6. It is too big if we have incompetence in power,

hell, Rhode Island would be too big if Bush were it's governor.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. It is not that the nation is too big; it is not. To the contrary,

we should be practicing to create a global, fair, ethical, entity that would abolish weapons, wars, and temporary control of geographical riches such as water, fertile land, oil and mineral wealth.

The problem is that our congress is too small.

When our nation was born, a senator was lucky if he represented 100,000.
today, an average congresscritter personally represents 680,000 people, whereas a senator of Illinois represents 10,000,000 jointly with another.

If you had the choice of answering letters from 1000 angry citizens, or accept a huge donation from a rich lobbyist, which would you do? Especially before a bruising election campaign?

Today's congresscritter no longer represents the citicenry; he/she/it represents him/herself with one goal - re-election. And that takes money - and that takes lobbyists - and that destroys the relationship between us, the people and our congresscritters.

We need to vastly increase the size of congress so they would be more representative, not little autocratic czars. So what if it becomes slightly unbweildy like India's parliament? Efficiency is less important than truly representative democracy

[The2ndWheel]

8. Yes

But then I'm a guy who thinks small scale would be the way to go. I don't quite fit with our current ways of thinking big in this world. So my opinion and about $3 will buy you a gallon of gas.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. IMO, a switch to a parliamentary system would be best...

provided that representation were proportional (all parties with more than 5% of the vote recieve a proportionate percentage of seats); that would lead to the viability of minor political parties, which would lead to a more democratic representation of the populace thanks to more points of view than those of two major, monolithic political parties being represented; this would also have the effect of forcing greater compromise among differing political camps in the interests of achieving any of their goals (especially in the case of a coalition government). A parliamentary system could never have given us a George Bush; he wouldn't have gotten there in the first place, and if he HAD, he'd have faced a vote of no confidence long before now.

[teryang]

10. Aren't we taking over the world?

Democracy and Chevron for all!