[quote=Biggles]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
The last thing that the world(and the U.S.) needs right now is a U.S. that is of one mind.
|
Quote:
Interesting way to put it. I agree fully, we do not want "one mind" to rule the United States. But that's not the case over here, I'm sure you understand that:salute:
|
Yes, I understand that. I said that Sweden is less socialist than the U.S. in terms of their party system. That is not entirely accurate. I should have said "less centralist". You'll have to forgive me for occassionally using the terms "socialist" and "centralist" interchangeably. It's a culture thing.
However, the U.S. is going down the road to a very centralist system. An oligarchy, of sorts.
Quote:
One other difference when it comes to our countries would be the election of government. As far as I know, the two parties choose one man/woman to become the leader of the country, and then they compete for the post as the president. Sometimes I can't really understand: are you voting for the man, or the party? The american press can really make things confusing sometimes...this is ofcourse nothing that the gov. can handle:)
|
It
is confusing. The two major parties hold primary elections that determine who will become their candidate. Once those candidates are chosen, they compete against each other.
Conservative voters generally vote Republican. Liberal voters generally vote Democrat. "Swing" voters have no clear party affiliation, and make up a big block of the voting populace. Sometimes they vote for the candidate of their choice based on party affiliation, and sometimes they vote based on their personal views of the candidate.
The debates and campaign ads are designed to target these "swing" voters. Party voters usually have their minds made up already. They subscribe to a party philosophy, and even if their party's candidate is not their preferred candidate, they will usually vote for him anyway.
So, to put it as simply as possible, The parties select their own candidates by voting for "the man". In the general (real) election, people are still technically voting for "the man". It is possible, for instance, to vote to elect a Democratic President and a Republican Senator or Representative. However, there are a lot of people who vote what is called a "straight-party ticket". That is, they vote for their party's candidates no matter what.
Does that answer your question?
Quote:
With swedish elections, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the party. Nowadays we have two "alliances" between the west-parties and the right-parties. There are more efforts made to make the party look good than it's leader. The interesting thing here is that there aren't any clear candidates to become the head of the gov. (Prime minister). The winning party (parties) decide that, although, the last election it was pretty clear which man that they would elect (Fredrik Reinfeldt).
|
That's fine with me, as long as those alliances don't eventually merge into parties of their own. Then you'll have a two-party system, like we do, and you'll be on the road to a centralist government.
Quote:
I could go on forever, but one thing I want everyone to understand: Sweden is as democratic as any country can be. When it comes to gender equality, we're at the top. That's just one example. We may be socialistic in our core, but we do not defy democracy.
Also interesting fact: The city Södertälje, south of Stockholm, grants more legal immigrants every year than the entire United States. The town has a population of aprox. 60 000. Area: 25.29 km2 :D
(That's legal immigrants, mind you):03:
|
Those are interesting points. Bear in mind, though, that the U.S. is not a democracy, in the purest sense of the word. It was intentionally designed as a representative democracy governed by constitutional limitations on federal powers to prevent what is called "tyranny of the masses". A good example of this concept is present-day Iraq, where the Shiites form the majority and have incurred the wrath of the Sunni minority, resulting in civil disocrd.
As far as legal immmigration goes, I don't doubt your findings. Immmigration protocols in the U.S. are very strict. However, millions of illegal immigrants have been pouring into the country for many years(not so much now, since the economy is suffering) Many of them were eventually granted citizenship.
Democratic leftists have championed these illegal immigrants for years, and I think it is just a ploy to garner votes. They know that most illegal immigrants are poorly educated, which means they will not question what they are told or be politically active. In addition, they are more likely to rely on Democratic social programs. On the other hand, legal immigrants from places like Europe and Asia have great difficulty immmigrating to this country. My own stepmother is a Ukranian nuclear technician, and she has been here for six years without being granted citizenship.
Coincidentally, the Democratic party has been the foremost supporter of strict immigration regulations, except when it comes to illegal immigration. Perhaps they fear an influx of educated immigrants? Or perhaps I am just paranoid? Either way, I would favor equal immigration requirements for everyone.
Your thoughts?
