[masaredera]

Okay so basically we we were conned into a second Bush term were we? Is that the standard for us or everyone in the world. The thing is that for 4 years evryone knew what Bsh was about...so say the first time we put him in office the voters were duped, how can you explain the 65 millon who came out and re-elected him the second time?? We obviously liked what we had.

Its got nothing to do with Bush in particular. Its the same as always, its often referred to as the democratic deficit. Its very common in rich developed western nations, and not so common in poorer nations that have been under our colonial/imperial thumb for decades. I.e., Bolivia and Venezuela have democratic participation amongst the citizenry that makes one wonder if we in North America even have a clue what democracy is.

There are lots of definitions of democratic deficit but to me it means essentially that there is a huge gap between what people want, the lack of a sense of democratic empowerment, and how far the elected leaders are are willing to go to honor the principles of democracy.

You mentioned the word 'conned' - yes, I think that that is essentailly what an election is in North America, a big con job. They lie, manipulate, cheat, steal, bribe, and swindle in order to get elected. That is the state of politics here.


Right but when it comes down to it there is always generaly a right or left government in place an very rarely a centrist/inependant one. People however frustrated always seem to vote an "old boys club" style government, a "typical" politician as usual. A classic example would be Britain in which over the last 200 years only two parties have had power. Can you giv me an example of single country where an "independant" or "third rail" party has ever succeeded? Another example would be us, or even Australia, look how long 2 parties have had dominance... Labor party in Britain. The NDPs in Canada have had moderate success. The green party is always gaining ground in many countries every year.

I think in US history things like womens rights, civil rights, general progressive movements have all come from 3rd party movements that were appropriated by the traditional parties.

But you are right, there has been a dominance of politics by the traditional elite, which i think is a big problem, and leads to a democratic deficit.

Fair enough but the biggest chunk of votes that went to any one party went to them. You yourself spoke of how corrupt the rulng liberal party was, but which way did you vote? For them again?
Biggest chunk yes, but far from a majority. They have very little power, just the other day the parliament voted to honor our commitment to Kyoto, soemthing that sitting government promised no to do, but they have little choice now. I have never voted for the traditional parties. I always vote green or NDP. If it was green or NDP that were traditional and elite i would vote liberal or conservative. I can't ever vote for the entrenched.


Really? Apparenty the will of the British and Australia and obviousy American people is against the war so why did we al re-elect leaders who took us to war? Good question, and it is especially confusing when one sees that the vast majority of people in those countries do not support the war. A further irony is that in Canada we did not join the war and we ended up putting a government in power that would have, and all through that there has never been support for the iraq war in canada amongst any significant part of the population.

Andrew