also, just for my peace of mind would you please provide the list of things that we've all agreed on?
Ya got to agree on this question if you ask a question with two possible answers to three different people it's quite likely none of them will agree.
@calisk you just need to ask broad questions because you start to disagree once you see a more detailed super answer, examples: we need to stop gun violence= agree by giving everyone a gun = disagree we need to stop politicians being influenced by business moguls= agree By ellecting someone that claims to be one = disagree.
yep, really wanted to prove you wrong, but every major iteration of the mobile phone al the way back to the first put out by Motorola is american...good job on killing the worlds attentions spans, giving the government an easy way to track our movements and communications at all time, and subjecting us to obnoxious teenagers that never look up from there phones like cell phone zombies. (just bein a **** for the sake of being a **** lol)
I do not see how this answers my question regarding your own state and it's undemocratic and sponsored politics and your apparent hypocrisy regarding those. It would seem all you can muster is scorn for elected officials ignoring what ammounts to glorified oppinion polls in the face of international (not national) diplomacy It is amazing how you seem to ignore that in your president and the ellections for that and other offices. It would seem then that judging by your response I have summed up the right of things, a shame you dare not yet admit to.
to be fair while american politics are rigged it's still democratic at heart. it's like playing monopoly and complaining when someone wins even though they played the game to the letter of the rules. what would of been un-democratic is if they ignored the out come of the rules to make Hillary the president simply because she had the most votes, this may sound contradictory but at the heart of any good democracy is law, and nobody should be above the law as such the US is willing to put an idiot like trump in charge to support that law. if they don't like the outcome they need to outlaw gerrymandering among other things, had Hillary been anything but a completely horrible candidate then she would of beaten trump, unfortunately democrats assumed she'd win simply because she was a WAhmen and honestly so did she. regardless though the us is a constitutional republic not a democracy, politicians just call it a democracy because it gets them votes, which is kind of funny because in most places in the world being ignorant of your own system of government could be considered a negative.
would have* would of is not a valid word combination. The americans are silly for having a system that naturally leads to a two party divide anyway.
because different opinions among free people are wrong? regardless if you ever think of the perfect governing system let the world know because nobody has found a perfect one yet.
is that you answering why the americans have their system set up the way it is or you asking me having forgotten that I live in a country where the last parliamentary ellection had 28 parties competing with another half dozen elliminated before the voting by virtue of not getting enough popular support to be allowed to run? want me to explain the poldermodel? in case you were asking me, no difference of opinion is not wrong. pretending there is only two sides that must try to avoid alliances at any cost is. EDIT: added parliamentary, last ellection was municipal and also a few weeks ago)
Eh i'm from Canada, we have a number of useless parties that run as well considering it's modeled off the British system, I like the system we use, I do believe it vastly superior to that of America but we have our issues as well. Americans designed there system as they did because the original founders didn't believe non-educated non-land owners could be capable of voting responsibly on matters of land and state, as such they created the electoral ballot to vote without risk of the rabble interfering substantially. considering the general feelings of the poor towards the rich(see Maria Antoinette) I don't really blame them al that much especially considering the average education of the time. regardless while they evolved the system to include more voters they never really evolved the system itself.
The governing system is less the issue that leads to a two party system. It's the voting system that does this. First Past the Post is idiotic because it leads to the phenomenon of voting against someone instead of voting for someone, but it's also the easiest system so that's how it's done in most places.
most places are wrong. if we do things the easy way the sea wins! water always takes the path of least resistance and it is the enemy! and also occasional ally!
England is considered basically a 2 party system by most of Europe for decades now. get your time machine fixed you are not in the decade you think you are in.
Well can't speak for England but in Canada our useless parties get a couple of seats so they get a say and Effect change to a minor degree. If nothing else there parties get to speak at the highest level of government on matters and as other parties fall out of popularity can begin to take more till the once popular parties disappear entirely.
