Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Potentially, but the issue is the US has some semblance of Democracy, but not proper democracy. There's a system for choosing leaders, and it's skewed against the people choosing and for the rich to control it. Is that better?
And you just have. Take notes... This is how we talk. Often times the most effective solutions to one's problems are the simplest. Only immature children expect the world around them to change in order to satisfy their own desires. So it's good that you seek us out. Now you must learn how to adopt adult problem solving techniques, and the temerity to see them through. In the end you'll find yourself master of your own destiny, and have fewer problems to rail against. Go now. And remember what we've taught you.It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.
Here are some systems which are better.
The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.
Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.
In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.
10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.
This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.
For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.
In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.
In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.
The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.
The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.
This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.
This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.
Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.
Second time someone's used such an argument.
And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.
And it just gets worse.
Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.
I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.
Here are some systems which are better.
The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.
Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.
In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.
10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.
This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.
For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.
In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.
In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.
The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.
The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.
This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.
This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.
Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.
Yes, I've always wanted a system where New York and California would determine the rest of all our elections.
After all, they seem to have a monopoly on our entertainment and key political figures like Trump anyway, so why not just let them finish the job?
Good call!
Only, they wouldn't.
Just as in Germany where Berlin and Munich don't control the government.
I'm sorry you have been misinformed. You can read some of my other posts to see why you are misinformed.
Those two states tip the scales on population dingleberry.
Potentially, but the issue is the US has some semblance of Democracy, but not proper democracy. There's a system for choosing leaders, and it's skewed against the people choosing and for the rich to control it. Is that better?
Proper democracy? No, the US is not a democracy period.
I realize all our political leaders refer to us as a democracy, but it is just one of many of their lies they feed to us for a purpose such as this.
And you just have. Take notes... This is how we talk. Often times the most effective solutions to one's problems are the simplest. Only immature children expect the world around them to change in order to satisfy their own desires. So it's good that you seek us out. Now you must learn how to adopt adult problem solving techniques, and the temerity to see them through. In the end you'll find yourself master of your own destiny, and have fewer problems to rail against. Go now. And remember what we've taught you.It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.
Here are some systems which are better.
The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.
Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.
In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.
10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.
This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.
For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.
In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.
In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.
The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.
The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.
This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.
This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.
Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.
Second time someone's used such an argument.
And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.
And it just gets worse.
Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.
Ignoring your problems, doesn't make them go away... Yet another childish "solution"... And just when we we making progress.And you just have. Take notes... This is how we talk. Often times the most effective solutions to one's problems are the simplest. Only immature children expect the world around them to change in order to satisfy their own desires. So it's good that you seek us out. Now you must learn how to adopt adult problem solving techniques, and the temerity to see them through. In the end you'll find yourself master of your own destiny, and have fewer problems to rail against. Go now. And remember what we've taught you.It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.
Second time someone's used such an argument.
And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.
And it just gets worse.
Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.
Yes, I've noticed. What you might notice is that I have the choice to ignore you.
You haven't taught me shit, other than reinforcing just how childish people on this forum can be, but I've seen hundreds of example, I really don't need more.
Ignoring your problems, doesn't make them go away... Yet another childish "solution"... And just when we we making progress.And you just have. Take notes... This is how we talk. Often times the most effective solutions to one's problems are the simplest. Only immature children expect the world around them to change in order to satisfy their own desires. So it's good that you seek us out. Now you must learn how to adopt adult problem solving techniques, and the temerity to see them through. In the end you'll find yourself master of your own destiny, and have fewer problems to rail against. Go now. And remember what we've taught you.It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...Second time someone's used such an argument.
And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.
And it just gets worse.
Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.
Yes, I've noticed. What you might notice is that I have the choice to ignore you.
You haven't taught me shit, other than reinforcing just how childish people on this forum can be, but I've seen hundreds of example, I really don't need more.
Ignoring your problems, doesn't make them go away... Yet another childish "solution"... And just when we we making progress.And you just have. Take notes... This is how we talk. Often times the most effective solutions to one's problems are the simplest. Only immature children expect the world around them to change in order to satisfy their own desires. So it's good that you seek us out. Now you must learn how to adopt adult problem solving techniques, and the temerity to see them through. In the end you'll find yourself master of your own destiny, and have fewer problems to rail against. Go now. And remember what we've taught you.It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...
And it just gets worse.
Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.
Yes, I've noticed. What you might notice is that I have the choice to ignore you.
You haven't taught me shit, other than reinforcing just how childish people on this forum can be, but I've seen hundreds of example, I really don't need more.
Actually it solves loads of my problems, and after this really boring conversation, I'm sticking you on ignore, I don't want to waste my time with this bullshit. Bye.
Nor should it be. Mob rule would be the bane of every minorities existence.
Potentially, but the issue is the US has some semblance of Democracy, but not proper democracy. There's a system for choosing leaders, and it's skewed against the people choosing and for the rich to control it. Is that better?
Proper democracy? No, the US is not a democracy period.
I realize all our political leaders refer to us as a democracy, but it is just one of many of their lies they feed to us for a purpose such as this.
It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
A trilateral fascistic republic, based on nativist capitalism, conjoined with a seperatistic foreign policy would be optimal.Nor should it be. Mob rule would be the bane of every minorities existence.
Potentially, but the issue is the US has some semblance of Democracy, but not proper democracy. There's a system for choosing leaders, and it's skewed against the people choosing and for the rich to control it. Is that better?
Proper democracy? No, the US is not a democracy period.
I realize all our political leaders refer to us as a democracy, but it is just one of many of their lies they feed to us for a purpose such as this.
It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.
Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.
Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of tyranical, militaristic, dictatorships who weaseled their way into power, promising fascism.Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.
Interesting. Good luck getting people to accept that form of government using the loaded term fascism though, might as well promote 'national socialism'.
Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of dictatorial regimes who weaeled their way into power, promising fascism.Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.Monarchy has it's merits.
Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.
Interesting. Good luck getting people to accept that form of government using the loaded term fascism though, might as well promote 'national socialism'.
I don't like it. It props up the weak amongst us.Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of dictatorial regimes who weaeled their way into power, promising fascism.Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.It's heavily outweighed by the downsides.
Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.
Interesting. Good luck getting people to accept that form of government using the loaded term fascism though, might as well promote 'national socialism'.
National socialism isn't bad either. If we stop pissing away tax dollars propping up and bombing other countries and instead spend that money here, in our own nation...
I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.
Here are some systems which are better.
The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.
Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.
In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.
10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.
This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.
For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.
In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.
In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.
The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.
The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.
This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.
This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.
Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so yearsI think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.
(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)
This argument has been thrown about a lot, and never, EVER proven to be the case.
The population size of California and New York is 40 million and 20 million. That's 60 million out of 320 million. That's less than 1/5 the size of the US. There's no way 1/5 the population gets to control in Proportional Representation.
Firstly, when California votes for president, ALL the votes go for the Democrats. This after the fact that 31% of people voted for Trump. With PR, 31% of people in California's vote would go towards Donald Trump.
This means California would be giving 8.7 million votes and New York 4.5 million votes, or 13.2 million votes out of 131 million voters. That's 10% of the vote. It'd never get to the point where they control everything. Seeing as they make up 20% of the country's population.
Now, it's funny how you say "You're fine with.... 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be" when the Electoral College system means that 12 states decide who the President is. When the PR vote would actually make things BETTER.
But it would take 30-35 states to overcome the lead NY and Ca would have..
and we barely got 30 this last time, and still lost the popular vote.
the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt would be left out of any chance to make a difference.
no doubt, that makes lame brain libs happy as hell
