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.
No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.No.
PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.
I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.
I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.
The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.
Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.
Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).
I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia
^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.
Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.
However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.
I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.
No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.No.
PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.
I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.
I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.
The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.
Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.
Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).
I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia
^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.
Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.
However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.
I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.
No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.
I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....
What happened Tuesday was the will of the people. If you look at an electoral map you can easily see why this country will not let itself be ruled by a few blueberries. Just accept that 2/3 of the states will never agree to this constitutional change. The only other thing is to overthrow the government and replace it with one you like better. Good luck with that one.Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.
However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.
Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.
What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.
PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.
The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).
This is the only way for people to have a say.
People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.
Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.
However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.
Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.
What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.
PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.
The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).
This is the only way for people to have a say.
People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.
The electoral college is a crucial, and necessary, element of our democracy.
The people vote just fine. Look at the electoral map. Which state is going to allow Detroit or Chicago tell them what to do?No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.No.
PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.
I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.
I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.
The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.
Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.
Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).
I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia
^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.
Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.
However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.
I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.
No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.
I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....
Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.
However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.
Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.
What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.
PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.
The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).
This is the only way for people to have a say.
People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.
No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.
The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.
Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.
Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).
I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia
^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.
Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.
However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.
I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.
No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.
I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....
No you're an idiot, STFU and whine to yourself in the corner...
What happened Tuesday was the will of the people. If you look at an electoral map you can easily see why this country will not let itself be ruled by a few blueberries. Just accept that 2/3 of the states will never agree to this constitutional change. The only other thing is to overthrow the government and replace it with one you like better. Good luck with that one.Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.
However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.
Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.
What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.
PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.
The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).
This is the only way for people to have a say.
People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.
The electoral college is a crucial, and necessary, element of our democracy.
Only a loser wants the EC to change...
sorry, but suck ass. We don't need a system where mother fucking Southern Ca. and New York DICTATE who runs the country. Our founding fathers were smart and knew how to do shit. You're not that guy. Don't take it personally, we're just not as functional or wise.
I'd be for increasing the number of electoral votes and reducing it down to districts however. But popular vote is simple-minded and should NEVER be accomplished. It's bad enough small California towns fall under the shit hole created by the bay area and southern ca.
Our system was set up a long time ago, even before smartphone were invented I'm pretty sure. It could be updated.
I can imagine a system where we don't just get to vote directly for representatives, but for laws, bills and budgets too.
But then I think about Plato who cautioned against democracy and rule by fucking amateurs. That's the weak point of democracy, the fact that people get to decide on complex issues that they've never been trained to understand.
Plato's ideal would be more along the lines of a system where people achieve office by passing rigorous academic tests.
No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in fuck I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.
No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in fuck I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.
In other words you like the fact that Republicans can only get elected by getting less votes than Democrats. So, from going from wanting change, you now don't want change. Wow.
No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in fuck I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.
In other words you like the fact that Republicans can only get elected by getting less votes than Democrats. So, from going from wanting change, you now don't want change. Wow.
Holly shit, I can't believe I'm responding. I'm out. Wise up, and read what you wrote.
sorry, but suck ass. We don't need a system where mother fucking Southern Ca. and New York DICTATE who runs the country. Our founding fathers were smart and knew how to do shit. You're not that guy. Don't take it personally, we're just not as functional or wise.
I'd be for increasing the number of electoral votes and reducing it down to districts however. But popular vote is simple-minded and should NEVER be accomplished. It's bad enough small California towns fall under the shit hole created by the bay area and southern ca.
Popular vote is "simple-minded" so a system which gives more power to some people's vote than others is a better system? How the fuck do you come up with that?
Why isn't one person one vote a better system?
In other words, you don't like California and New York and therefore you don't want them to have as much voting power as other states? That's ridiculous.
