The Folly Of Political Wings

[Ubereil]

I did, and I still think it oversimplifies.

Übereil

[Elliot Kane]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Wouldn't be the first time! ;D

[kilgoretrout]

A bird with one wing won't fly.

[Glance A'Lot]

Well - some birds, never fly - even though they have wings...

And still, they live and prosper...

[kilgoretrout]

You ever talk to a bird who can't fly? I have and let me tell you , thay are miserable.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

I don't think that pengins, dodo's, emu's, ostriges (sp?) etc. are miserable

[Glance A'Lot]

Those who sore high, fall deep...

Though we're splitting feathers here...

The real interesting point is the multiplicity of a people's representation.

Is the limitation to only two wings (as in the USA) a good thing?
Is a multi-party system, which basically requires koalitions, better?

Koalition governments tend to be less stable - but are more diverse in their representation of the public.
One could argue that it is less efficient, however the obligation to compromise to find consensus gets decisions thought over more than once.
A strong opposition is not inherently bad - safe maybe for the respective government...

Actually, in forms of governments the Romans in their prime were more flexible and wise:

Not a single man at the top, a senate as a sort of check and balance, and in times of crisis the possibility for a time limited dictatorship.

And the top power positions limited in time for only a short period.

The system began to fail when individuals started to cling to power...
(A very natural trait basically - as a Roman once said, probably from living experience: "homo homine lupus est"!)

[kilgoretrout]

Government is to control. the question is , in what manner if any do you wish to submit to being controled.

[Glance A'Lot]

'Who controls the controllers?' - as Wladimir Iljitsch said...

But I suspect that there's a reason why in English 'Who controls the comptrollers?' sounds so confusingly similar...