Re: NAC Politics

Allan Goodall wrote:
>The U.S. does _not_ have a "two party" system. Congress can, and did,
>function as a multi-party organization. The problem is that it's very,
>very difficult for a new party to form and win seats in the Senate, or
>House of Representatives, or take the presidency, let alone take two
>out of the three.
>
>While campaign finance laws stack the deck in favour of the
>incumbents, and thus the status quo, there's nothing actually
>preventing multiple parties from gaining representation in Congress.

To this and others pointing out flaws, I was trying to give
a "view from 50,000 feet" of the two political systems
stretched over a century or so. As you say, there's nothing
actually stopping a third party from forming in the US. But
third parties are not often important in US federal politics,
while they usually are significant in UK/Australia/Canada.

>I guess whether or not Scotland is moving toward a "dominion" depends
>on your definition of "dominion". Scotland wants "home rule", and has
>achieved much in the last decade, mostly by showing what a chunk of a
>country can do when the majority votes as a single block. What
>Scotland wants is control of taxation and tax spending within
>Scotland, and a fair division of natural resources. Scotland
>understands, though, that such items as national defence are best
>handled at the U.K. level.

Yeah, that's what I would mean by it. India in the 19th century
British empire would be "colony", Australia and Canada would
be "dominions."

>>  Since the NAC is a recent creation, and Americans are
>>  known for their, uh, "excitability" compared to Brits,
>>  I'd assume it starts Victorian Empire with intent to
>>  move towards Commonwealth.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "excitability". If anything, Americans
>are far more blase with regard to politics than Brits. Voter turnout
>is much lower, for a number of reasons. I have a hard time seeing
>anything like the violent poll tax demonstrations happening in the
>U.S.

Blatant stereotyping :-) "Our" politics are of course stable
and entirely reasonable. "Your" politics are bizarre and
it's amazing that anything gets done at all. Values for "our"
and "your" depend entirely on the observer.

	cheers,
	Hugh