Why both parties are destroying the country

[JayVols]

NEO agreeing with VOLatile....

Hell has officially frozen over.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

It's a very good point though.

I could go out right now and go after the christias who make 50k-125k and you know I am running as a republican

I could then go out and go after homosexuals and people on welfare and you would know I am running as a democrat.

If the world was not like that and you had no idea what party the person was coming from because there were so many than people would have to vote on the politciansd record and not on their party.

it would change the game completely.

 

[sjt18]

The US is great, but it's not invincible.

The US is unfortunately following the same basic cycle of nations that other great societies in the past have.

That's why I also believe we need to fix the educational system. We are so behind other countries because school is basically a conformist environment where all that matters is the bottom line. Kids don't have the drive to learn, they just want to get good grades.

Education without teaching values is bound to fail.

Considering your Tea Party statement, and I'm just guessing, I'm assuming you want a limit on government control on education so that religion can be put back into schools.

No. I want freedom because I believe in "us" more than I believe in gov't, politicians, and bureaucrats. I think the closer to the people a decision is made... the better... with the ultimate being individual choices/decisions.

I would very much like strictly local control of gov't schools with a voucher system that could be used with the school of the parents' choice (private or public). I think parents on the whole care more about their kids' education than gov't. I think PARENTS not gov't have the right to decide what values are instilled in their kids for 7 hours a day. I think competition will make ALL schools better.

IMO the ONLY requirement for the voucher should be the ability to pass a grade equivalency exam in core subjects.

I'd be fine with teaching Christianity in schools, as long as it's an optional class, and there are other religious choices for classes for kids to take.

As the public school system currently is... I am not in favor of this at ALL. Someone's rights will be trampled or it will be a free for all. There are something over 1000 recognized religions in the US alone. There's no way to accommodate them all.

What's so much the difference between what the nation puts out and what the state puts out?

You as an individual have more control and access with your state gov't... and even more with your local gov't.

I suppose you could say "Well the states should still have the freedom to teach what they want, and if a kid doesn't like it then their family should leave the state and find another place"

No. I'd say they can take their voucher to the private school down the street or the public school one town over... or start their own small school that agrees with their values or home school. But like I said, I am not comfortable with a gov't institution taking a stand on religion. If it did... it should be strictly optional as you suggest.

I feel like that's not creating an environment of equality, people should be free to learn in an environment that's comfortable throughout the country.

Agree... and that is not currently the case.

If a family just REALLY wanted a school a that instilled religious beliefs, then they can go the private school route.

Why should those parents pay taxes to fund the public school that they cannot in good conscience send their kid to then also pay tuition out of what is left after taxes? That isn't creating an environment of equality is it?

I would try to say more, but I feel like I'm not gonna get anywhere, which is sad. All I can do is hope MAYBE you can see where I'm coming from here.

I think I do. You have made a good case. I agree with several things you said.

 

[JayVols]

It's a very good point though.

I could go out right now and go after the christias who make 50k-125k and you know I am running as a republican

I could then go out and go after homosexuals and people on welfare and you would know I am running as a democrat.

If the world was not like that and you had no idea what party the person was coming from because there were so many than people would have to vote on the politciansd record and not on their party.

it would change the game completely.

I am not disagreeing. The parties are bought and paid for by special interests.

You get my pm?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Sjt, what values should be taught in schools?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Sjt, what values should be taught in schools?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This ought to be good...

 

[sjt18]

VolsMcGee... thought this deserved a response of its own:

Times have changed. People have changed. Society has drastically changed.

People really haven't changed. Technology has changed but people really haven't. We face the same moral challenges. We face many of the same kinds of decisions. We have the same basic strengths and flaws. Societies do evolve.

Some years ago, this was published in an op-ed (sometimes attributed to a 18th century Scottish scholar). Regardless... it seems to hold true historically:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage

And our country is in a state of economic distress.

Where doyou think that puts us on the cycle? You said rightly that we are not invincible... nor are we guaranteed freedom that we aren't willing to fight for.

Right now is not the time to return to founding ideals, but instead we should focus on finding new and creative ideas to fix our economy.

Right now is PRECISELY the time to return to the founding ideals of rights and freedoms. Those ideals MADE us an economic giant like none before or sense. The fundamental ideal of the sovereignty of the individual... of freedom transcends circumstances. The rewards and responsibilities of freedom are indispensable.

We have had 100 years of efforts to centrally control our economy and society. Well intended people have sought and tried various ways of purging risk and pain while keeping gain. The current mess is the unmistakeable proof that the whole notion of central control is flawed.

Otherwise, China and the other progressing countries will leave us in the dust.

Do you know when China began to progress? When they started moving AWAY from the central control that we are moving toward. They were once an iron fisted socialist nation with rigid central control. Then about 20 years ago, they came to a crisis point. People were starving. Socialism was failing. So they began to allow economic freedom. They have maintained a more strict control over social freedom... but they have companies and managers making "free" decisions within their economy. Their regulations are lax. They have low labor costs.

Last year the Chinese gov't completely lost control of their steel industry. They wanted to limit production/supply and couldn't. They now have a growing consumer base with private material possessions. They are most decidedly moving away from bondage.

 

[sjt18]

Serious question. Didn't this idea prove ineffective under the Articles of Confederation?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Not at all. The Constitution still placed very strict limits on the Federal gov't.

 

[sjt18]

Sjt, what values should be taught in schools?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That is not for me to determine for you or your children or your community.

That is one of the fundamental problems I have with the public school concept as it officially exists. I am not claiming that all public schools are bad. I am certainly not claiming that any or all teach bad values or even fail to teach good ones.

However you cannot educate without the structure provided by a value system. That value system has to come from somewhere... and it may not agree with the views of everyone affected by it.

I believe that we as a society DO have a vested and corporate interest in assuring every child has an opportunity for an education. The only way I see to avoid a conflict between that priority and the rights of conscience of parents and students is to give them the freedom to choose their school.

 

[JayVols]

Not at all. The Constitution still placed very strict limits on the Federal gov't.

I agree. There are limits. I get the impression that what you are advocating is more in line with The Articles. I could be wrong.

Do you support Judicial Review?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

I agree. There are limits. I get the impression that what you are advocating is more in line with The Articles. I could be wrong.

No. Just Federalism as it was generally thought of prior to the Civil War. I realize the concept was used to justify the unjustifiable. But the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

Right now, I think our country would definitely be better off if more was done at the state level and less at the Federal level. States already watch each other to see what works. So instead of massive, nation wide experiments... the risks would be limited but rewards shared.

If federalism reigned... no other state would follow California. The federal gov't seems intent on following California.

Do you support Judicial Review?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes but more restricted than is often practiced. I believe it should mostly be restricted to questions of constitutionality or legality with specific deference to original intent.

Unfortunately the best way I can think of to explain it is in contrast to Obama's concept of the Constitution. He said he would like it to be read as asserting "positive" rights for gov't.

I think the most important role of judicial review is to allow hopefully just and impartial judges to prevent gov't or more powerful citizens from trampling the constitutional rights or freedoms of a weaker individual. IMO, it should be one more safeguard against gov't over stepping its bounds.

 

[JayVols]

That is not for me to determine for you or your children or your community.

That is one of the fundamental problems I have with the public school concept as it officially exists. I am not claiming that all public schools are bad. I am certainly not claiming that any or all teach bad values or even fail to teach good ones.

However you cannot educate without the structure provided by a value system. That value system has to come from somewhere... and it may not agree with the views of everyone affected by it.

I believe that we as a society DO have a vested and corporate interest in assuring every child has an opportunity for an education. The only way I see to avoid a conflict between that priority and the rights of conscience of parents and students is to give them the freedom to choose their school.

Don't know if you are aware, but I teach. Starting year 18. I assure you, I do my very best to instill values that I am sure you would agree with: hard work, no one owes you anything, respect for others, think for yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, you get out of something what you put into it. We really do try. Are there bad teachers? Absolutely. That infuriates me more than you, be assured.

We are fighting what we feel is a losing battle. We can't make a child learn. We have little to no support from too many parents. It is impossible to undo in an hour and a half class what they encounter at home. I am a teacher that welcomes accountability. I LOVE it because, I do my job. Just to brag a bit, I had over 200 kids that took the state standardized tests. They performed at an average of the 30th percentile nationally on previous testing. After my class, they scored in the 67th percentile, and my school is OVER 50% economically disadvantaged. I'm proud of what my students have achieved.

We can't do it alone. We need help from parents. If you truly realized the lack of parental involvement and support, you would be stunned. The problems in education share a direct correlation to societal problems. I don't want a pat on the back or an atta boy. I want respect for the job I do. We all are not evil perpetuators of mediocrity like we are portrayed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

No. Just Federalism as it was generally thought of prior to the Civil War. I realize the concept was used to justify the unjustifiable. But the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

Right now, I think our country would definitely be better off if more was done at the state level and less at the Federal level. States already watch each other to see what works. So instead of massive, nation wide experiments... the risks would be limited but rewards shared.

If federalism reigned... no other state would follow California. The federal gov't seems intent on following California.



Yes but more restricted than is often practiced. I believe it should mostly be restricted to questions of constitutionality or legality with specific deference to original intent.

Unfortunately the best way I can think of to explain it is in contrast to Obama's concept of the Constitution. He said he would like it to be read as asserting "positive" rights for gov't.

I think the most important role of judicial review is to allow hopefully just and impartial judges to prevent gov't or more powerful citizens from trampling the constitutional rights or freedoms of a weaker individual. IMO, it should be one more safeguard against gov't over stepping its bounds.

Judicial Review is not a Constitutional power. In Marbury v Madison, the courts gave themselves that power. I'm sure you are familiar with The Judicial Review Act of 1789.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolsMcGee]

so sjt, what you are basically proposing is that there should be a large amount of public accessible schools with different values and scholastic principles, and allowing people to choose which one they want to go to? Yeh, I can see where your coming from. It would allow the individual to have his right to choose his style of learning, as it differs from the singular style conformist public schools that exist today. However, there are a few issues I have with this.

Doing so might create segregated groups of people. What's to prevent all the white folks from staying at one school, and the inner city poor folks staying at another? I think one of the good things about the current system of public schools is that it forces people of different cultural backgrounds to interact with each other. This allows for people to make friends with others that they may not have thought to before, and gives people an understanding of the different backgrounds and environments that people go through. Also, how do we control the funding of these schools? Are they paid for by taxes, or specifically by the people who go to the school? What happens when one school gets superior funding, and suddenly everyone wants to congregate to that school?

So what it boils down to is, is there a way to create equality among these schools, as well engender diversity into them?

I feel it's good that the conversation has shifted to education, because in my opinion education is one of the most, if not the most, critical issue in America. My mother has been a long a time teacher and is currently a principle, and she has told me the horrific stories of what she encounters. How kids are apathetic to learning because they have lost all hope. It's their environment that creates this lack of care. They feel....abandoned.

I think I do. You have made a good case. I agree with several things you said.

I'm glad that we are able to find at least some common ground. I as well found many things I agree with you on. I think less government control and more local control is VERY important and needs to be pushed more to the front, as it does help create an easier environment for interacting with the policy makers, but I also think that national government needs strong influence in a variety of areas.

If people could have more rational, understanding discussions like this, instead of shouting matches, we all could fix our problems a lot quicker.

 

[VolsMcGee]

Don't know if you are aware, but I teach. Starting year 18. I assure you, I do my very best to instill values that I am sure you would agree with: hard work, no one owes you anything, respect for others, think for yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, you get out of something what you put into it. We really do try. Are there bad teachers? Absolutely. That infuriates me more than you, be assured.

We are fighting what we feel is a losing battle. We can't make a child learn. We have little to no support from too many parents. It is impossible to undo in an hour and a half class what they encounter at home. I am a teacher that welcomes accountability. I LOVE it because, I do my job. Just to brag a bit, I had over 200 kids that took the state standardized tests. They performed at an average of the 30th percentile nationally on previous testing. After my class, they scored in the 67th percentile, and my school is OVER 50% economically disadvantaged. I'm proud of what my students have achieved.

We can't do it alone. We need help from parents. If you truly realized the lack of parental involvement and support, you would be stunned. The problems in education share a direct correlation to societal problems. I don't want a pat on the back or an atta boy. I want respect for the job I do. We all are not evil perpetuators of mediocrity like we are portrayed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I love hearing from teachers that care about the state of the school system. I respect teachers as much as anybody else. So, what do you think is the best way to counter act the current state of apathetic learning children get from their home environment?

 

[sjt18]

Don't know if you are aware, but I teach. Starting year 18. I assure you, I do my very best to instill values that I am sure you would agree with: hard work, no one owes you anything, respect for others, think for yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, you get out of something what you put into it. We really do try. Are there bad teachers? Absolutely. That infuriates me more than you, be assured.

Yes. I knew and sympathize with your battles and frustrations. I do agree with those values but do not think they go far enough.

We are fighting what we feel is a losing battle. We can't make a child learn. We have little to no support from too many parents.

Here is where I think my idea would unfetter you or at least allow children to be put in an environment where teachers are free to instill a more specific, assertive, and comprehensive set of values.

It is impossible to undo in an hour and a half class what they encounter at home. I am a teacher that welcomes accountability. I LOVE it because, I do my job. Just to brag a bit, I had over 200 kids that took the state standardized tests. They performed at an average of the 30th percentile nationally on previous testing. After my class, they scored in the 67th percentile, and my school is OVER 50% economically disadvantaged. I'm proud of what my students have achieved.

It sounds like you have the right motives, ideals, and talents. I would like to see you with more freedom to do what is necessary.

We need help from parents. If you truly realized the lack of parental involvement and support, you would be stunned.

On that one... I can absolutely assure you that I would not be stunned. All three of my kids went through public schools. We've moved enough to see pretty bad and pretty good. Even in the best schools... halls were too often deserted on parent/teacher conference nights. We knew parents who actively opposed and undermined teachers' authority with their kids.

The problems in education share a direct correlation to societal problems.

The breakdown of the home has many manifestations... none are positive.

I don't want a pat on the back or an atta boy. I want respect for the job I do.

I don't mind giving you one but more than that I want you to have the freedom to do the job right. I don't want you to have to dodge issues. When someone asks why they shouldn't "spread their seed"... you should be able to say it is morally wrong, unloving, irresponsible, and demeaning to women.

The worst type of answer to moral issues is the one that we have found much too frequently. The teacher says the kid should avoid behaviors because it could result in negative consequences for them. All that does is encourage the same selfishness that motivated the deviant behavior to start with.

We all are not evil perpetuators of mediocrity like we are portrayed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

:lolabove: I never thought anything of the sort.

 

[JayVols]

I love hearing from teachers that care about the state of the school system. I respect teachers as much as anybody else. So, what do you think is the best way to counter act the current state of apathetic learning children get from their home environment?

If I had the answer to that, I would be rich. We are beginning tohold parents accountable for attendance. That's a start. There is no discipline in schools for fear of lawsuits or actually letting the students know something is not acceptable (don't want to damage their psyche). That could fix more problems. It's hard to educate a student that will not stay awake. Many parents give employers the ok to work students until the wee hours of the morning on school nights. The kids can't see past the minimum wage they are earning and realize that that is their destiny because they will not participate in their educational process. They see a little money and that is all they care about not realizing the consequences.

My big idea, I guess, would be a fundamental change in the way we educate. I would keep all the academic programs for college bound students. For the most part, they tend to 'get it'. Much apathy comes from non college bound. I would segregate the curriculum from college bound. Those desiring a Career Technical Education (vocational) would be emmersed in the trade of their choice. Math and reading skills would be taught but in relation to their chosen vocation. We would have to have a 'survey course' if you will consisting of a sample of many different vocations for them to choose a concentrator. Once classroom math and reading skills are taught, training would begin at the school with the goal of by their mid-point of their junior year, they could be totally emmersed in an apprenticeship program 'in the real world'. They could receive pay for this.

Students who don't see a correlation between a class and their intended profession tend to be unmotivated and cause disruptions for those wanting to learn. This would allow those interested in college to be freed of many disruptions and those unmotivated (academically) an outlet to succeed and gain a needed vocation and lessen the chances of being a burden on society. This is the Cliff Notes version.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

so sjt, what you are basically proposing is that there should be a large amount of public accessible schools with different values and scholastic principles, and allowing people to choose which one they want to go to?

More like public funding of parental choice. States could still supplement the public schools over and above the voucher parents turn in. Some public schools will continue to thrive. Some would have to improve. Some would fail and be replaced by a better school

Doing so might create segregated groups of people. What's to prevent all the white folks from staying at one school, and the inner city poor folks staying at another? I think one of the good things about the current system of public schools is that it forces people of different cultural backgrounds to interact with each other.

Would you choose to interact with other races? If you would, why do you think others wouldn't? And why do you think it is your right or the gov't's right to force someone to interact with someone they do not wish to interact with?

Being from the south but having lived outside the south for most of my adult life I have learned something interesting. I very often share more in terms of personal values and background with black people from the south than white people from other regions.

The three guys in my current company I am closest to and most comfortable with are black. We like alot of the same things. We come from very similar sub-cultural backgrounds. Three of the four of us are first generation professionals. We share very similar views on people and employees. We even have similar decision making patterns and considerations.

In short, skin color doesn't turn me on or off.

This allows for people to make friends with others that they may not have thought to before, and gives people an understanding of the different backgrounds and environments that people go through.

We all segregate. It is natural and more often than not unconscious. With regard to race, we'll either choose to give people a chance or we won't. Forcing people together can hurt the process of people leaving those prejudices behind just as easily as helping.

Also, how do we control the funding of these schools?

The parent or guardian receives a voucher equivalent to about 60% of the current avg public school per student cost. They can redeem it at a private or public school. On the low side, a voucher would be worth around $4000. On the high side, it would be worth as much as $10000 at today's costs.

Imagine the impact on those poor communities if their best and brightest could get into a $10k per year, elite private school... How much more opportunity would that provide? How much more motivation for those who want out and aren't athletic?

Are they paid for by taxes, or specifically by the people who go to the school?

Taxes. And unlike most of my other opinions, I would suggest that federal taxes are the right vehicle.

What happens when one school gets superior funding, and suddenly everyone wants to congregate to that school?

The same thing that happens when a business is successful. They expand and others copy and then improve on their operating model.

So what it boils down to is, is there a way to create equality among these schools, as well engender diversity into them?

We don't want equality do we? Equality would assure stagnation and mediocrity. We would want inequality... then another school taking the lead and making things unequal... then another school taking the lead.

If you are asking how racial equality of opportunity would be assured then make acceptance of the most qualified applicants regardless of race or some other consistent and objective system of choosing students a condition of being able to exchange vouchers for money.

I feel it's good that the conversation has shifted to education, because in my opinion education is one of the most, if not the most, critical issue in America. My mother has been a long a time teacher and is currently a principle, and she has told me the horrific stories of what she encounters. How kids are apathetic to learning because they have lost all hope. It's their environment that creates this lack of care. They feel....abandoned.

It is a critical issue. But as Jay mentioned, he nor your mom can fix these homes. They need MORE freedom to instill the values the kids don't get at home. But that cannot be done legally within the rules of the current public school system.

I also think that national government needs strong influence in a variety of areas.

What they do... they should do very, very well. I have said many times here that the role of the federal gov't should not be to decide winners and losers. They should not be in the business of "helping". The federal gov't should be the referee... enforce the rules blindly and don't take sides.

If people could have more rational, understanding discussions like this, instead of shouting matches, we all could fix our problems a lot quicker.

Maybe. Or maybe we could fix some of them. But if you don't know already you will in the future. Some people have a different agenda than the benign and sincere one you have. They have a much different image than you of what would constitute a "fair and just" nation.

 

[VolsMcGee]

It looks to me like you have thought long and hard about how to fix the educational system. It's a VERY interesting idea you are proposing, and it's most definitely worth investing to see how well it would work in society. We definitely need to try many different routes, to see which one is not only able to create a good environment for learning but is able to bring the best out of every student. I for one am very curious to see how people would react when given the freedom to choose how they want their kids to learn.

Would you choose to interact with other races? If you would, why do you think others wouldn't? And why do you think it is your right or the gov't's right to force someone to interact with someone they do not wish to interact with?

I would love to think that people wouldn't mind interacting with other races, but from personal experience I think it's extremely difficult. My high school was predominantly white. There were about 20 to thirty black, Arabic, and Indian students. They all sat at the same table by themselves. I remember hearing all the kids making fun of them while cracking racist jokes. It was sad. I think that it would be important for people to be forced to interact on at least some level with someone from a different background whether it be race, nationality, religion, or creed. I think this would help to get people an understanding of people who are different from themselves. This would allow people to think of situations from multiple different perspectives. If they are stuck together, at least they share that commonality. From there, maybe they can find out what other similarities there are. And then, they can understand their differences, and respect each other.

Maybe. Or maybe we could fix some of them. But if you don't know already you will in the future. Some people have a different agenda than the benign and sincere one you have. They have a much different image than you of what would constitute a "fair and just" nation.

Sometimes I do feel a little naive in believing in what I believe in, but I do feel that deep down, as Anne Frank said "People are really good at heart" I would hope that listening to people, and understanding why they want or believe in the things that they do or say, can weed out the malevolent crowd. It won't always work, but most of the time getting to know someone can help to understand their intentions. I want our political parties to work together to find solutions instead of yelling why their own solution is better. Both sides are doing it, and neither solution gets what the other wants. If we can work to find a good middle ground, or work together to create new solutions, America can withstand most anything.

From there, we can figure out which solution works the best. Even if one party had the ultimate solution, the other party wouldn't dare accept it; because it's the other party, you have to disagree with it. Respect and understanding will do wonders.

 

[sjt18]

McGee, the one truth that has been pounded home to me since getting a little older is that you can only change one person in this world. That one person can influence others but it is WRONG for that person to try to force someone else to change. It usually doesn't work any way.

You have a somewhat integrated school. Yet you acknowledge that those kids segregate themselves and that the majority makes fun of them. Forcing them together arbitrarily doesn't seem to be working very well. I am willing to bet that you can influence more people to make the right decision with your words and deeds than force.

 

[TheDeeble]

Going back to the original thought of the thread, I agree that this country is far too divided. Everything now is played up to be a life or death decision. If we do "x", the economy is going to completely tank. But if we do "y" then the economy is going to completely tank also. Neither side will accept a good decision or plan, just because it came from the other side.

Everything is fear driven now. Drive your idea with fear and blame the other guy if something goes wrong.

 

[sjt18]

I think the only reason that can be effective is that there is a "swing vote" middle that doesn't hold a firm position. They are swayed by fear or marketing or whatever. They do not vote for ideals... they may not even care about them. So when something seems not to work, they fall to the other side. The net effect is that neither side can implement their plan to see if it actually works or not.

If I were going to blame someone, it wouldn't be liberals. I disagree with them. I think their ideas are and would be terrible. But those to blame are those who cannot or will not think through what they really expect from gov't and vote consistently that way.

 

[VOLatile]

To break the partisan government and make the US a truly effective democratic republic, there needs to be an equally strong third party (no matter what it is) to offset and make the D's and R's honest.

 

[VOLatile]

I think the only reason that can be effective is that there is a "swing vote" middle that doesn't hold a firm position. They are swayed by fear or marketing or whatever. They do not vote for ideals... they may not even care about them. So when something seems not to work, they fall to the other side. The net effect is that neither side can implement their plan to see if it actually works or not.

If I were going to blame someone, it wouldn't be liberals. I disagree with them. I think their ideas are and would be terrible. But those to blame are those who cannot or will not think through what they really expect from gov't and vote consistently that way.

There really is no way to vote consistently when even the candidates are never consistent with what they say.

 

[KiffinKiller]

To break the partisan government and make the US a truly effective democratic republic, there needs to be an equally strong third party (no matter what it is) to offset and make the D's and R's honest.

This could help...Canada's system is similar to this, but they run into a lot of the same problems we do. They also allowed a separatist party in QC. smh