>>You don't want to insist on election by popular vote instead of the electoral vote?
>
>I'm not so sure that it is the "Electoral College" that is the problem for me so much as ONLY two parties SETTING THE RULES FOR EVERYTHING. Right now it looks like a nice cozy club and people IN the club are quite happy and certainly don't want to let anyone else (party-wise, not person-wise) into that club.
>Here the general thing is that there are rules set by government law/regulation that are designed to give everyone an "equal" opportunity to run for office, even to starting their own party if they want to. In fact our present official Opposition Party didn't exist 11 years ago. The rules here are such that they could manage that - 0 seats to top minority within 11 years. IMPOSSIBLE in the US as things exist today!
>
>>
>>You think the U.S. should adopt some of Canada's socialist policies?
>
>We don't really think that our policies are "socialist" to the degree that others use that word.
>Our Medicare system is very expensive to us, as reflected by our taxes. Many columnists have touted getting rid of it simply because of that cost.
>Now a (very) few who have spouted that theory found their minds changed when they actually 'encountered' the system upon the dire illness of themselves or a loved one.
>I, personally, had a kidney transplant 4+ years ago and the TOTAL bill that I got from the WHOLE establishment was $12.00 and that was for the rental of a TV in my room! The aftercare, which is very extensive in the first 2 years and has now diminished significantly, has also cost me exactly $0.00 for the whole time since!
>
>Aside from Medicare, what other "socialist policies" do you have in mind (I presume that outlawing guns is NOT considered a "socialist policy")?
>
>>
>>Could there be a better country by 'melding' the two and taking the better policies of the two and dropping the least desireable ones? Should the better policies be determined by vote, taxes, or profit?
>
>That's a real tough one. I guess one possible 'solution' would be to have a different setup of "state's right" for populations/land masses incorporated into the US. That would seem to represent minimum disruption to all established states AND to the new 'states'. Melding might then occur naturally over time, with some way evolving to make it acceptable to all concerned.

Jim;

We could cite numbers published about how many people are killed with guns, cars or whatever form recorded. Doctors in this country kill more people each year by malpractice then the number of people killed by handguns. The attorneys and insurance companies along with the doctors form a rather large and powerful lobby. They feed off each other.

So perhaps we should get rid of the United States medical System. Not a bad idea! If we got rid of all the cars in this country fewer people would be killed on the streets and hi ways.

Remove alcohol and drugs from society and fewer people will die each year. The same thing goes for weapons of all types. Remove the source and the effect is not felt.

Tom