conservative - liberal -silly

I'm with you Lou, couldn't help myself. Fell to the left corner of Centrist. Lol, seems about right.

 

and they play the ''rub my back I rub yours'' deal.....get me money for my state, even though it's for crap, and I'll get money for your state........you back me, I back you.....and the factors you name are true...some more than others........$$$$ is also a big factor, no?? along with the lobbyists.......

 

with only about 6 million people compared to around 320 million for the US, do you think Finland has as much fighting between parties? is it just as hard to get a compromise? there aren't as many political parties?? thanks all replies

 

Not so, political leanings aside, there is ample supporting documentation as to the original intent. It's only those people who want to ignore the original intent, (Conservative, Liberal and Moderate) that muddy the waters, because they want to circumvent the Constitutional protections without having to resort to the amendment process (usually because there is not sufficient public support to get the amendment ratified). The Federalist papers give extensive background into the thought processes of the framers. There is significant public and private correspondence from individuals involved in it's writing and ratification to further elucidate their intentions. The Constitution IS NOT an all encompassing set of laws, but rather a set of principles to guide us in devising our laws. If our lawmakers were to keep within the Constitutional guidelines many bad laws and policies could be avoided and the rights of the citizenry not trampled upon. There is a reason that there's the old saying; "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Just because one has altruistic motives when proposing a law or policy, doesn't mean that the end result can't be twisted or manipulated by people with less than noble intent towards their own end and to the detriment of our people. Constitutional principles are a safeguard against such ill advised laws. There was a good article in the Harvard Journal of Law in 1996 discussing the validity of original intent. An excerpt:

"By this approach, the Framers are viewed as designers or architects of the lawmaking "machine." We consult them when we want to know how the machine is supposed to work, not because they are a surrogate for the majority of the people who lived two-hundred years ago, but because they might have special insight into the machine that they designed--especially its internal quality-control procedures. They gave its purpose and design much thought--perhaps more thought than we have--and we benefit from their learning in interpreting their design.
More important, however, in designing this machine, the Framers adhered to certain basic principles, analogous to principles of engineering. These principles are either sound or unsound. Adhering to them leads either to laws that bind in conscience or to ones that do not. If they are sound, we must continue to operate the machine according to these principles or we will pay a heavy price.
Consider another analogy: by cutting the cables on a suspension bridge we risk collapsing the bridge because we are violating the principles that the bridge designers engineered into the structure. The designers' intentions do not bind us, but their design does. Assuming we share the designers' objectives, we cut the cables at our peril. Similarly, by eliminating the safeguards built into the constitutional structure by its Framers, we risk the adverse consequences they consciously sought to avoid.
We need to learn about and adhere to the principles of the Framers, then, not because they rule us from the grave, but because the principles they discovered and embodied in their machine are as valid and useful today as they were then. If the laws produced by their machine bind us, they do so because they were produced by a machine that still adheres to the sound principles of lawmaking that the Framers devised."

I personally think that our getting away from our Constitutional roots and the separation of powers established in our founding document has led to our political polarization and governmental dysfunction. When the judicial branch started making law and not just interpreting it, when the Executive branch legislates by Presidential order, and when Congress abdicates it's advisory, lawmaking and budgetary duties our government ceases to function as intended.

 

5,5 million - to split hairs...

There are 8 parties in the parliament at the moment. Three of them are in the government, which is not too bad. The previous government had 6 parties, which meant, that they were not able to agree on anything and nothing was done. That was a disaster.

In addition to that there are normally abt the same amount of other parties, which are not going to get any MPs.

And yes, the parties fight all the time - well, almost. The current government - one year old now - almost disintegrated 6 months ago because of fighting. And the parties in this gov are not supposed to be ideologically that far in the first place.

If I tried to compere the Finnish parties with the US ones on the left-right axis, I would estimate, that the US Democrats would be in Finland in the far right (a small party with few seats). The Republicans would be in the ultra right (with no seats). ;-)

View attachment 23815

Political groups (comments mine)

Governing coalition (124)

Centre Party (49) (agrarian background, strong in the countryside, weak in cities)
Finns Party (38) (populistic centre-left with nationalistic tones)
National Coalition Party (37) (moderate conservatives)

Opposition parties (76)

Social Democratic Party (34) (moderate left)
Green League (15) (red-green)
Left Alliance (12) (far left, communists)
Swedish People's Party
and Åland Coalition MP (10) (Swedish language party, moderate conservatives)
Christian Democrats (5) (moderate conservatives with bible bashing)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Finland
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Finland

 

much thanks ..very interesting........the US being very diverse, I would think would have more political problems

 

Finland has many political problems at the moment:

- the economy has been diminishing/stagnant since 2008
- the budget deficit is still abt 10 % - same as last year - but still there's a lot of support for borrowing even more
- the national debt has doubled since 2008
- unemployment is high and not diminishing
- the trade unions (and left wing parties) refuse to understand that the excessive pay rises made before the recession are now killing the Finnish businesses. They also resist practically all attempts to cut the public spending
- the sanctions on and of Russia hit the Finnish economy very hard - as well as the Russian economical situation
- the number of pensioners is getting higher (the baby boomers + the increased average age). Still there's a lot of resistance towards rising the retirement age limits
- the number of asylum seekers (predominantly uneducated young men looking for better life) got ten times higher last year (expenses now 1,5 % of the budget and not likely to diminish)
- etc.

 

sounds like the USA !!

 

I personally think that our getting away from our Constitutional roots and the separation of powers established in our founding document has led to our political polarization and governmental dysfunction. When the judicial branch started making law and not just interpreting it, when the Executive branch legislates by Presidential order, and when Congress abdicates it's advisory, lawmaking and budgetary duties our government ceases to function as intended.



The founding fathers had their own functionality as well