Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (14682)	5/4/2011 6:34:43 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37611

"In your system Obama may have had a Dem house but they are not obligated to vote his way as I understand it and he cannot turf them out for voting against his wishes .. right ?" Yes very true. However, it is important to note when a vote is very close there are Representatives or Senators who are essentially given permission to vote against the party for preservation purposes of that person. Say the vote is controversial and the party in power knows that. You will often see a bill passed by one vote. If it was necessary there would have been more votes - but in the next election the person who voted no can proudly go to his/her constituents and say they opposed the controversial legislation. But you are correct - our system has lead to paralysis on key issues - particularly the budget. That is where the president is supposed to provide leadership and rally public opinion behind an issue. That has not happened here yet. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. However, I always think of Allende when I think of Parliamentary government. Good luck. Bob