Time for change, time for third party voting...

[FA_Q2]

This is just going around in circles. There's not much point in continuing.

Then let us reign it in.

Do you acknowledge that voluntary interaction is free of coercion, based on many of the legitimate and popular definitions?

If so, then do you acknowledge that all taxation coerces at least one party with the threat of punishment?

Not really.

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

I'm the latter. If someone is the former then they're going to see things in a different way.

Personally seeing the 3% of US GDP go on corruption within the health industry, and seeing other countries spend far less for an effective health service based around taxes, I see that both capitalism and socialism can be good or bad depending on how they're treated.

That is rather irrelevant to the overall conversation though. You may believe that tax is good or bad but that does not determine that it is voluntary or not. Voluntary does not mean good and not being voluntary does not necessitate that it is bad. Your resistance in acknowledging taxation as involuntary makes no sense to me as it is logically a non-voluntary action and blatantly so.

So, when you pay taxes on things, it is done under duress or a threat?

Yes.

Punishment is conditional with non-compliance.

If you buy a house, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you buy food, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you get a job, you're doing so under duress?

No.

Man, your life must suck if everything you do you feel threatened to do.

I will give you two reasons why the definition of voluntary you are using is wrong.

For one, it is not defined by majority usage. Words are defined by how they are used. Relatively few people consider voluntary to be an action taken under duress. Semantics are one of the few topics that can be legitimately argued through argumentum ad populum. This goes for the philosophical definition definition as well.

For the hell of it, I will even throw in the legal definition since you view it as legitimate. Consensual acts are not taken under duress, according to widespread precedent. The legal system establishes a distinction between compliance and consent. That is why people forced to murder at gunpoint will get manslaughter, and a rapist is not acquitted due to the victim not sufficiently fighting back.

But you know you have to pay tax BEFORE you do something, right? So... you've made the choice to accept before you've bought something, before you took a job.

Non-compliance is when you've agreed to it already then don't do it.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed as Onyx has been pointing out because you are ignoring the coercion part.

That coercion exists in that doing anything at all in society essentially leads to X action. Stating that you could simply choose to be a hermit does not mean that submitting to such an action is a voluntary act. Taking from the analogy that you and Onyx have been using, if you owned a house in FA_Q2 land and I declared that to continue owning that house you needed to give me a BJ, if you purchased ANYTHING at all I would also need another BJ, if you worked you would need to give me a BJ, if you wanted to own land a BJ would need to be supplied or if you wanted to sell anything at all it would have to come with a BJ and if one is not supplied you are going to go to prison then are you really going to say that BJ is a voluntary act?

On its face it is not - it is an act forced on those with threat of force and attaching it to virtually everything that you may want to do or accomplish with your life. The idea that it is voluntary because you can live miserably to escape it is logically asinine. There is clear force behind taxation.

"non-consensual taxation"? Who doesn't consent? You can go live in some other country if you don't like it.

I could, but this is my homeland. I am not going to let politics desecrate my country without a fight.

It isn't like it is any bit different anywhere else either.

There's no difference between a pension that you might have and welfare.

Except pensions are a truly voluntary contract between employers and employees. At least when government socialists do not get involved.

Without leadership you have anarchy, and with anarchy the strong will destroy the weak and take over and try and get rid of the anarchy that led them there in the first place.

Do you know the difference between leadership and rulership?

Like I said earlier. Kill thugs and leave people to their own devices. It isn't hard.

But you're basically advocating Communism and I don't see how that could possibly work, again, based on the selfishness of humans.

I understand why you thought my position was communistic, but statelessness is not mutually exclusive with Marxism. It was never treated as such by intellectuals either.

Well then, if you want to stay in your country you're consenting to what is happening. You vote, I assume, which means you consent regardless of whether you vote for the winners or not.

Pensions are truly voluntary, so too are taxes, you just don't see it like that. You don't have to work to pay into the system. You could have your piece of land somewhere and barter for goods, it's your choice. If you use the government's currency then you're consenting, if you make a legal contract with this currency, you're consenting.

It's possible not to pay taxes. Not easy, and you'd be subsistence farming, but hey.

Leadership and rulership, a difference? Sure, one leads by their inherent power, the other is there because they're there. However people in the US get elected.

You think it isn't hard. Maybe you should go look at 1990s Russia and see what isn't hard.

I'm not necessarily talking about Marxism with your position. I'm talking Communism. Sure, Marx had a big hand in defining this, however I'm really just talking plain Communism, where people work for the common good, where nothing is owned, sort of like the Native American tribes before their genocide.

You are WAY off base here. Taxation in inherently non-voluntary by its nature. You are born and subsequently FORCED to participate if you agree or not. That is the exact opposite of voluntary. Why is that so hard to accept?

"It's possible not to pay taxes. Not easy, and you'd be subsistence farming, but hey."
Actually - it is not. It is actually impossible to do so legally. You are taxed if you own property and even bartering is, if you do so legally, a taxable action.

Not necessarily. It's become "non-voluntary" just as having a phone has become "non-voluntary". You kind of need to do it because you want to live in society. However you don't have to live in the mainstream of society. You could sneak off into the wilderness and live in a tent in the forests and grow your own food away from the grid. Then you don't have to pay taxes. But, people choose to live within society, to have electricity, to have gadgets, to have a car, to buy food from the store and all that stuff, and then they pay taxes. They just don't see it as a choice, when it actually is.

In a way, a phone and a vehicle have become items that are no longer completely voluntary to own. The differences are, of course, that they are not nearly as pervasive as taxation, you can actually avoid them with out the asinine heights that you have to go through to avoid taxes and that there is literally no force whatsoever behind not owning those devices where there is force behind not paying taxes.

Also, you entirely ignored the point I actually made. It is LITERALLY impossible to avoid taxes legally - period. It does not matter if you live as a hermit in the middle of the woods - you actually need to own that plot of land and that is taxed. Any exchange of goods is taxable by law. IOW, the argument that you can legally avoid taxes, no matter what length you go to, is false. There is a reason that people say death and taxes are the only 2 things you can count on.

But then again people also have the choice of voting for a party to get rid of taxes. They don't. They CHOOSE to vote for the main two parties. Again, choice.

 

[FA_Q2]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

Winning is a prerequisite for electing someone.

Yes it is. And as long as the duopoly continues to convince people that they are the only ones that can win then nothing will EVER change.

Third parties can win - people just have to actually vote for them.

Approval voting is a much simpler solution.

This system has the exact same problems that our voting system has. Instant runoff voting is a much better solution where people can vote their consciousness with impunity while not helping those that they are opposed to win.

 

[dblack]

Approval voting is a much simpler solution.

This system has the exact same problems that our voting system has. Instant runoff voting is a much better solution where people can vote their consciousness with impunity while not helping those that they are opposed to win.

?? Have you read about it at all? That's exactly the problem approval voting resolves, simply and cleanly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anarchy is another utopian ideal that fails for the same reason - it ignores human nature.

False. It is a purely practical idea.

Kill uniformed thugs. Allow people to self govern. Promote self sufficiency. Hold people accountable.

Statism is a utopian ideology. It is the belief that the best managed society can be conditioned through the use of established rulers and systematic violence on a grand scale.

No, it is not more or less practical than other utopian ideals. Your stance seems to be that the best society is best when people are left to their own devices. Again, this ignores the base nature of humans to create power structures and seek them out. The ideal fails because people are not ideal.

It is human nature for some to seek power and control while others naturally acquiesce to it or even seek it out.

Yeah.

I believe in permanent class war against rulers and those that are trying to emplace themselves as rulers, preferably through armed organization.

This looks no different to me than the permanent class war that exists today where the state has won.

On the small scale in a large world, the ideas of anarchy work in the same manner that communism works on that scale. This is mainly due, IMHO, to the reality that small scales allow the individual actors to hold others accountable for their impacts on the group or other individuals.

You are trying to put an inherently individualistic ideology on a geopolitical scale.

Collectivism is one of the great ires that has driven many men to become anarchists.

No, I am not. I am pointing out where that individualistic ideology ends - under the control of the statist that is, by the very nature of the differing ideals, able to organize a larger more powerful force.

The r3ealities of technology and its ability to act as a force multiplier make this an inescapable reality.

Irrelevant.

Force can be responded with equal or greater force.

The proportion of force does not matter, as long as it can be effectively replicated.

That is the core problem, you assume that it can be when that is false. The force of the state cannot be 'replicated' on an individualized level hence the almost universal presence of the state where poverty is not the pervasive norm.

That is where anarchy always fails, the powerful break away from the ideal and create a coalition that is far more powerful to control those that are weaker. That is why I call your philosophy a utopian ideal - it falls to human nature.

This may be important from a philosophical standpoint, and in the long run, it really does matter. But at this juncture, it's a counter-productive distraction to the cause of limiting intrusive government.

It is the only thing of relevance in politics.

The existence of the state degrades humanity and produces a cycle of destructive wars and civil violence.

If you are not striking at the root of the problem, then you are just fighting an uphill battle.

The root of the problem is not the state - it is human nature that creates it. You are not going to get rid of that reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Approval voting is a much simpler solution.

This system has the exact same problems that our voting system has. Instant runoff voting is a much better solution where people can vote their consciousness with impunity while not helping those that they are opposed to win.

?? Have you read about it at all? That's exactly the problem approval voting resolves, simply and cleanly.

Yes.

It does not because, as I understand it, the vote is on equal footing. Here is the issue that I have:

You have 3 candidates -

Y from one political philosophy
X and Z that represent the opposite political philosophy. X is the well known candidate from the majority party where Z is a third party. In this case (as is so often in American politics) X is clearly a piss poor choice for office.

The political philosophy that X and Z represent enjoy 60 percent of the support so they should clearly win. Y only has about 40 percent of the support. The way the current political system works in this country is that most people vote for X out of fear Y will win and ignore Z entirely because of this so X typically wins. Sometimes, Z does gain enough support to make waves but that only results in Y winning meaning that either the piss poor candidate takes office or 60 percent of the population looses to the 40%. Clearly a poor outcome.

With Approval Voting, you have a slightly better outcome but the same root problem. Those that support Z are now able to vote them BUT they must also vote for X to prevent candidate Y from winning with only 40 percent support. Now, the piss poor candidate from the majority party STILL WINS for the exact same reason that they won before - FEAR. Even if most people supported Z, they would have to also support X in opposition to candidate Y or Y may win with less support than X and Z.

Runoff voting, IMHO, solves this by ranking those votes. It is similar to approval voting but it allows you to rank your options. In this case, if Z is your preferred candidate and manages to garner more support than X then Z ends up with the X votes as well and wins. If not, then X gets Z's votes and wins. The candidate with the most support wins. The best outcome in my opinion. It both eliminates the stigma for voting for a third party, allows you to determine if that candidate is actually the one with the most support and does not threaten the voting populous with electing the least popular candidate for voting what you believe to be correct.

 

[FA_Q2]

This may be important from a philosophical standpoint, and in the long run, it really does matter. But at this juncture, it's a counter-productive distraction to the cause of limiting intrusive government.

It is the only thing of relevance in politics.

The existence of the state degrades humanity and produces a cycle of destructive wars and civil violence.

If you are not striking at the root of the problem, then you are just fighting an uphill battle.

The root of the problem is not the state - it is human nature that creates it. You are not going to get rid of that reality so

This makes your opposition to voting for a third party pointless, that same opposition can be said about voting for the main parties.

Actually my argument was that a multi-party system would not change much.

Part of my job is tearing down other means of reform that will just lead humanity down the same hell funnels.

Humanity is flawed and therefore all it creates will be flawed. We will always be headed down those 'hell funnels' - it is more a matter of creating the best we can and correcting the direction we are going in with the least amount of suffering.

In that, I see refining the manner that the government works in important - including getting a more varied governmental representation. If we are always working directly for the ideal and perfect system we will forever be unable to achieve any real progress.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

You trying to win Miss Congeniality? Any more lame obvious statements for us?

 

[toomuchtime_]

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

You trying to win Miss Congeniality? Any more lame obvious statements for us?

What is obvious is that this whole thread is nonsense from a bunch of whiners who back unpopular people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh great, and now the personal attacks. Bye.

Sorry mate, that was not meant to single you out.

When an argument goes around in circles, it is a sign that one or both parties is incapable of understanding a single point.

I actually appreciate how decent you have been carrying on these conversations without resorting to attacks. I have tried to afford you the same respect.

Like I said in a previous post, maybe it's just that we're both coming from different angles on this, and it's not that I don't understand the point, it's that I don't accept your point because you're coming it at from an angle I don't like.

I find that there is an argument for doing nothing out there. For allowing the poor to remain poor, for not being pro-active.

If you look at the royalty of Europe over thousands of years, those who are remembered aren't the reactionaries, but the revolutionaries. Peter the Great took Russia from being a backwards country and single handidly set it on a path to greatness. Whereas someone like Nicolas the Second are only remembered because they messed up so badly for being reactionaries.

I've seen so many examples where anything pro-active is blocked and excuses are given for why this is the best way forward, when it's not a way forward at all, it's a way backwards.

The people who were against ending slavery, the people who were against ending segregation, and many other things are similar to the people who are against moving forwards, and I'm looking at moving forwards and being pro-active.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

 

[dblack]

Approval voting is a much simpler solution.

This system has the exact same problems that our voting system has. Instant runoff voting is a much better solution where people can vote their consciousness with impunity while not helping those that they are opposed to win.

?? Have you read about it at all? That's exactly the problem approval voting resolves, simply and cleanly.

Yes.

It does not because, as I understand it, the vote is on equal footing. Here is the issue that I have:

You have 3 candidates -

Y from one political philosophy
X and Z that represent the opposite political philosophy. X is the well known candidate from the majority party where Z is a third party. In this case (as is so often in American politics) X is clearly a piss poor choice for office.

The political philosophy that X and Z represent enjoy 60 percent of the support so they should clearly win. Y only has about 40 percent of the support. The way the current political system works in this country is that most people vote for X out of fear Y will win and ignore Z entirely because of this so X typically wins. Sometimes, Z does gain enough support to make waves but that only results in Y winning meaning that either the piss poor candidate takes office or 60 percent of the population looses to the 40%. Clearly a poor outcome.

With Approval Voting, you have a slightly better outcome but the same root problem. Those that support Z are now able to vote them BUT they must also vote for X to prevent candidate Y from winning with only 40 percent support. Now, the piss poor candidate from the majority party STILL WINS for the exact same reason that they won before - FEAR. Even if most people supported Z, they would have to also support X in opposition to candidate Y or Y may win with less support than X and Z.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Approval voting completely does away with this problem. There's no down side to voting for all the candidates you approve of. Voting for X and Z is just as effective in defeating Y as voting for only one of them. Moreover, Z might actually have a significant amount of support from Y's nominal political philosophy (or party). That's the additional benefit of approval voting: it's makes real consensus building a winning strategy and discourages divisive rhetoric.

Runoff voting, IMHO, solves this by ranking those votes. It is similar to approval voting but it allows you to rank your options. In this case, if Z is your preferred candidate and manages to garner more support than X then Z ends up with the X votes as well and wins. If not, then X gets Z's votes and wins. The candidate with the most support wins. The best outcome in my opinion. It both eliminates the stigma for voting for a third party, allows you to determine if that candidate is actually the one with the most support and does not threaten the voting populous with electing the least popular candidate for voting what you believe to be correct.

I think you're missing something key about the way approval voting works. I could go into it here, but I'm sure they'll do a better job of explaining it at the links I posted. It achieves all the ends you're after here. Runnoff voting is fine too, but it don't it offering the same incentive for consensus building.

 

[frigidweirdo]

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.

You see that excuse played over and over again on this forum. That is a central problem with our system today.

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No one is prevented from voting for whomever he or she thinks is the best candidate now.

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They're not, but because there's only two parties, they get advertised to death, and many people don't think for themselves. More choice and all of a sudden they're looking at less power for the big two, more chances they'll decide to vote for others because the whole "if you don't vote for these two, your vote is wasted" nonsense.

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

 

[Andylusion]

That's nonsense. There will be four parties with candidates for president in this election, and Sanders and a few others have run as independents and won for years. If your candidate loses it's not because of he system, it's because he didn't inspire enough people to donate money and volunteer and vote for him.

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

 

[Onyx]

Like I said in a previous post, maybe it's just that we're both coming from different angles on this, and it's not that I don't understand the point, it's that I don't accept your point because you're coming it at from an angle I don't like.

That was the thing though.

I was only trying to argue that taxation is involuntary, using the popularized general, legal, and philosophical definitions of voluntary.

It seemed you were just conflating voluntary with having choice, which seemingly you were not addressing at all no matter what I said trying to point this out.

If you look at the royalty of Europe over thousands of years, those who are remembered aren't the reactionaries, but the revolutionaries.

You do realize reactionaries can also be revolutionaries?

Anarchism is often labelled as a reactionary ideology, since it seeks to return mankind to the natural order.

The people who were against ending slavery, the people who were against ending segregation, and many other things are similar to the people who are against moving forwards, and I'm looking at moving forwards and being pro-active.

Okay, well slavery exists right now. Our masters abuse and degrade us, the ruling class consolidates their powers, inhumanity has began plaguing our society, Americans are turning amongst ourselves, and the country is heading towards war.

This is what your idea of proactive has led to throughout history, without exceptions. You had over 4500 years to prove your ideology worked. It did not work, and consistently it had produced the same civil violence, and ended with the same destruction.

Now we have nuclear bombs capable of dousing the whole world in flames, massive industry that is shredding through the environment at rates never seen before, and growing nanny states of unseen proportions.

Your solutions do not work. Enough is enough. It is time to stop fucking around.