Welcome RPizzle!

[cowiz]

What is your favorite color?

Blue.

What is the purpose of your quest?

To find the Holy Grail.

What is the third question (which for the moment escapes me)?

[gooseboy]

You have to do 4 years undergrad and then start medical school!?!?!?!?!

Do you think you'll be old enough to retire by the time your finished?

[gooseboy]

Actually, now that I think about it the greatest university in the world, Sydney University, now also requires med students to already have a bachelors degree. It wasn't like that when I went through. Could you please explain why a degree is needed in order to start on a med degree?

[RPizzle]

You have to do 4 years undergrad and then start medical school!?!?!?!?!

Do you think you'll be old enough to retire by the time your finished?

I expect to be 40 by the time I'm an Attending (Consultant, I think in UK system).

The US system runs 4 years undergraduates -> 4 years medical school -> 3-5 (usually) year residency -> Physician -> 1-5 year fellowship -> Physician (Specialist, cardiology etc.)

[RPizzle]

Actually, now that I think about it the greatest university in the world, Sydney University, now also requires med students to already have a bachelors degree. It wasn't like that when I went through. Could you please explain why a degree is needed in order to start on a med degree?

Honestly, I haven't a clue. I've wondered this myself, as I'm not sure how my liberal arts education helps my medical skills. It just seems to be a wasteful time sink that I have no choice, but to deal with.

[gooseboy]

Actually, now that I think about it the greatest university in the world, Sydney University, now also requires med students to already have a bachelors degree. It wasn't like that when I went through. Could you please explain why a degree is needed in order to start on a med degree?

Honestly, I haven't a clue. I've wondered this myself, as I'm not sure how my liberal arts education helps my medical skills. It just seems to be a wasteful time sink that I have no choice, but to deal with.

That sucks.

Could you have done neocon arts if you'd wanted to?

Do you think that having publicly funded health care impinges on people's rights, such as the right to be uninsured if you really want to be? (This was a concept that I learnt of by hanging around in internet forums, but it does seem to have some support in the US.)

[RPizzle]

Actually, now that I think about it the greatest university in the world, Sydney University, now also requires med students to already have a bachelors degree. It wasn't like that when I went through. Could you please explain why a degree is needed in order to start on a med degree?

Honestly, I haven't a clue. I've wondered this myself, as I'm not sure how my liberal arts education helps my medical skills. It just seems to be a wasteful time sink that I have no choice, but to deal with.

That sucks.

Could you have done neocon arts if you'd wanted to?

Do you think that having publicly funded health care impinges on people's rights, such as the right to be uninsured if you really want to be? (This was a concept that I learnt of by hanging around in internet forums, but it does seem to have some support in the US.)

Neocon arts... I'm sure there is some Christian College out there that just might.

I am pro-universal health care, as I consider it something that should be a right of every citizen. I believe that private insurance can co-exist with public insurance...it'll just have to compete a hell of a lot more to remain viable.

The US medical establishment (American Medical Association) is firmly against the public option, as payments from Medicare (governmental) tend to be far lower than private insurance. However, insurance is doing well in screwing both the physicians and the consumer by underpaying practicioners and overcharging consumers. The Republicans are fighting with every fiber of their being to stop a public plan. The Democrats (I am one), are overall, pussies, so they will fold to this. My prediction: The US tries out a 'hard talking-to the insurance companies plan' and so long as they are good, the US won't throw down the public option. It makes me almost sick that even with a supermajority, my political party lacks balls to push their own legislation through. Sorry, this ended up as a rant.

[gooseboy]

Wasn't too ranty - I liked it!

Next question, in a few parts:

1) Do you think that first past the post polling (as is done in US presidential elections, sort-of, via the electoral college which seems to me to no longer serve any purpose) should be replaced by preferential voting, whereby even if your preferred candidate only gets a very small faction of the vote your vote still isn't wasted because it then falls to your second preference (and if they only get a small vote it falls to your third preference and so on)?

2) Do you think that concentrating a lot of power in one person, not to name names but such as a President, is highly desirable?

3) Do you think that retailers should be adept at replacing caudal appendages of teddy bears?

[RPizzle]

Wasn't too ranty - I liked it!

Next question, in a few parts:

1) Do you think that first past the post polling (as is done in US presidential elections, sort-of, via the electoral college which seems to me to no longer serve any purpose) should be replaced by preferential voting, whereby even if your preferred candidate only gets a very small faction of the vote your vote still isn't wasted because it then falls to your second preference (and if they only get a small vote it falls to your third preference and so on)?

I would say to begin with that the Electoral College should be completely and utterly abolished. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote, yet lost the election. I believe that this would not have been the intention of the framers. While I understand the merits of preferrential voting, I disagree with it. It seems fairly arbitrary to determine what a 'legit' candidate would be. Also, if a third party wishes to become viable then people must be willing to vote for what they believe in. Hell, the Pirate Party has a voting seat in the EU now, so I think the Green, Natural Law, Independent parties could follow suit in the US. While the aims of the preferrential voting seem positive (expanding the reach of the 3rd parties), I believe it would only serve to reinforce the status quo. If 20% of people up and used their single vote for a 3rd party, people would take notice. I don't think the same could be said if a minority party had it's votes effectively go to one of the major players.

2) Do you think that concentrating too much power in only one person, not to name names but such as a President, is highly desirable?

Yes, very much. However, in our last cycle the system of checks and balances had been completely waylaid. In fact, a report released today (I believe) showed that the FBI/CIA under orders, kept secrets from all of Congress. This includes those in sensitive committees. The president lied about the intel which lead us into war, and reports were released that he was already in discussions about war with the British PM as soon as he took office. The WMDs were a proven smokescreen to Congress. As far as powers...I do not believe that the President should have any power to send troops without Congressional authority. Also, the Executive powers taken by our former President far exceeded those that are legal, especially in protecting the illegal actions of his staff. I really have no issues with the powers of the President as written (minus the military thing...and pardons). It just needs to be better controlled so that it is in line with the actual Constitution, and not a loose as possible interpretation.

3) Do you think that retailers should be adept at replacing caudal appendages of teddy bears?

What do bear tails have to do with anything!?

[gooseboy]

While I understand the merits of preferrential voting, I disagree with it. It seems fairly arbitrary to determine what a 'legit' candidate would be. Also, if a third party wishes to become viable then people must be willing to vote for what they believe in. Hell, the Pirate Party has a voting seat in the EU now, so I think the Green, Natural Law, Independent parties could follow suit in the US.

I'm not sure if you're confusing preferential voting with proportional representation. The thing about preferential voting is that it allows you to vote for you who you most believe in (for me it's neither of the major parties here in Aust), but my vote's not thrown away because if, as I suspect, my preferred minor party doesn't win the sit, my preferences allow me to decide which I of the major parties I prefer. In a US presidential election I'd never vote for anyone who wasn't in a major party because realistically I need to decide whether I preferred the democrats or the republicans. Also preferential voting eliminates "vote splitting".

In (at least many parts of) Europe it's easy for minor parties to get elected because if, say, 6% of people vote for the greens then they will get around 6% of the seats in a proportional representation parliament.

[gooseboy]

Oh, and shouldn't retailers be able to retail teddy bears??

[RPizzle]

While I understand the merits of preferrential voting, I disagree with it. It seems fairly arbitrary to determine what a 'legit' candidate would be. Also, if a third party wishes to become viable then people must be willing to vote for what they believe in. Hell, the Pirate Party has a voting seat in the EU now, so I think the Green, Natural Law, Independent parties could follow suit in the US.

I'm not sure if you're confusing preferential voting with proportional representation. The thing about preferential voting is that it allows you to vote for you who you most believe in (for me it's neither of the major parties here in Aust), but my vote's not thrown away because if, as I suspect, my preferred minor party doesn't win the sit, my preferences allow me to decide which I of the major parties I prefer. In a US presidential election I'd never vote for anyone who wasn't in a major party because realistically I need to decide whether I preferred the democrats or the republicans. Also preferential voting eliminates "vote splitting".

In (at least many parts of) Europe it's easy for minor parties to get elected because if, say, 6% of people vote for the greens then they will get around 6% of the seats in a proportional representation parliament.

I made a major edit on my prior post, though I now think I get what you mean. We don't have any sort of proportional voting for seats. Each Senator and Congressmen is elected by an individual race within the district which they represent. For instance in a single election I may vote for President, US Senator from PA, US Rep. from my PA district, PA Senators & PA Reps (my district), various state/local positions, and local offices. Each election is Person A vs. Person B vs. Person C. There are no races based on party itself that I know of.

I will have to read more about this system though...it seems interesting to me. I am a fairly big political junkie, however, I have little knowledge of International politics.

[gooseboy]

Don't want to get too bogged down on this....

But say a new political party started in the US that was left of the Democrats, (lets call them the Greens as Red and Blue are already taken ) and they had, say 15% support. So, say in a presidential election the Greens got 15% of the vote, Dems got 35% of the vote and the Republicans got 45% of the vote, with the rest going to minor parties. Now given that most (say 80%) of Greens supporters preferred the Dems over the Republicans, do you think that the Republicans winning the White House (in this fictional case) really reflects the will of the people?

And because parties can, to some extent, direct where their preferences go this actually gives minor parties more power. For example the Greens could say to the Dems that they will only give them their preferences if they promise to, say, introduce a ski-school voucher system so that underprivileged kids can go to the mountain resort of their choice.

I'll move on now. What do you make of the rivalry between Lord Baltimore and William Penn?

[RPizzle]

I'll move on now. What do you make of the rivalry between Lord Baltimore and William Penn?

Ummmm....uh huh...yeah... I got nothing. I know who William Penn is...that is about the extent of it. I feel so uneducated now.

I will have to meditate over the body of your post though before I can make an informed intellectual response.

[gooseboy]

I will have to meditate over the body of your post though before I can make an informed intellectual response.

OK, maybe you could also share your thoughts on the pros/cons of having an apolitical head of state (not necessarily a monarch!).