ttbn. What I've suggested, looks nothing like the US model!

Candidates would nominate on a reasonable fee and say 500 minimum signatures. And then stand for whatever whoever they want or are most closely aligned to? Or as an independent. Then join a party, if they are so inclined?

Then the electors in that electorate, decide in a primary runoff, all candidates who they prefer. That's is what a primary is and totally democratic. If w like could settle for two only six-year terms for any and all winning candidates?

If one candidate gets more than 50%? Is Automatically the elected candidate, if not the two with the highest number of votes, goes on to a secondary winner takes all contests, with that candidate with the highest final vote winning the seat. It's still a preferential system, but one that can't be mugged in dirty deals done in the dead of night in backrooms!

Senate selections cold be done on a similar basis where a quota would be filled for the division, by those candidates that self select then win enough votes to win a quota.

And should make their commitment and promises strapped to a lie detector!

And until the entire state quota had been filled. This then lets the electors decide who gets the right to run/preselection, not branch stacked branches or corrupt power brokers/party officials!

And then who wins a guernsey? It's also a preferential proportional representation system but one that is front-loaded by the voters alone, not a tiny minority of diabolically devious party members, gaming the system! And as such bears absolutely no resemblance to the American system that has the finest democracy money can buy!
Alan B.

Back to the virus:

At the risk of seeming to be a supporter of the ABC in any way, this is a brilliant summary, point after point, of the situation in the US, and what can (or won't) be done about it, no matter who wins the election:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/how-do-you-save-united-states-from-coronavirus-covid-19/12789616

I truly weep for America.

Joe

David are you a US citizen?
If not then who the hell do you think you are trying to impose yourself of the US political system?
You don't even get a vote.

"Justifying billions of dollars being expended on the military annually at the expense of other worthy internal and foreign assistance demands where there is never enough money to go around."

- So let me get this right - You demand the US government spends more money on you instead of its own citizens?

Let me ask you are you a terrorist?
Why are you trying to demand financial recompense from US citizens?
Hasn't Israel taken enough from them?
Doesn't Israel get enough weapons from the US government for free?

Trumps peace plan sux.

If you want a peace plan, you should give back everything you've taken in the last 100 years, apologise and provide compensation to every man woman and child and then leave the land that you took with violence and force.

Then apologise for imposing your crap on every other nation in the time in between.

To ttbn-

I re-read the posts in this thread and found that your position on the Monarchy was more nuanced than my first glance.

As to the following...

"CM, "If we were able to elect our own leader it would be easier for "Globalist Agenda". Monarchy is based on "Localist" and "Culturalist" principles." I have to admit that I don't understand what you mean there. Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 24 October 2020 12:17:49 PM
Find out more about this user""

There are those that believe that government and principles should be applied from the "top down" (universalist/ globalist/ Locke Liberal) and those that believe that government and principles evolve from the "bottom up" (localist/ Traditional).

Those that believe in universalist global principles include Communists, Global Capitalists.

Locke Liberal's believe in the principles of the father of liberal democracy- John Locke- who wrote "Two Treatises Of Government".

Other philosophers that were involved with creating the principles of liberal democracy- John Stewart Mill- On Liberty (On Freedom- Negative Freedom), Thomas Hobbes- Leviathan, others. As with all philosophical discussions there is some subtlety.

Other philosophers such as Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Traditional Culture see different strategies to the management of societies as being more valid.

Prof Patrick Deneen wrote "Why Liberalism Failed"

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-death-of-liberalism/9380788

http://www.patrickjdeneen.com/why-liberalism-failed-reviews

Tied up in the philosophy of liberalism is the Mill Freedom concept in society- the idea that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others- the problem is it always affects others. Aristotle on the other hand says that people that are slaves to their baser natures are in fact- not free- and people need to learn to be free- this is similar to the original intention behind the Liberal Arts- the Art of Learning to be Free.

These are both related to the beliefs that man is "naturally good" or "naturally bad". If man is naturally bad then he needs to be trained to be good over time- society in this regime should perhaps be vetoed by the older wiser members of the society.

There are other ideas..

Posted by Chris Lewis- "I do agree that China poses a far more serious challenge for the US and world than Japan ever did. If Biden downplays China, that would indeed be a worry."

Answer- Good comment- demonstrates a good subtle understanding in the context of history. Kudos+