You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

Question, why does america cling to a FPTP Winner takes all system instead of switching to a system with more proportional representation?

no people left england so they could be free ( to discriminate based on religion)

then they started a war with France, and then they decided they did not want to fund the war with France.

You always put yourselves first, except in the greatest catastrophy where your humanity kicks in, then promptly shuts off again in time for you to send psychologists to disaster areas because these cultures where people help others before themselves are obviously not dealing with their psychological trauma and need to be helped so they can react in ways that you expect them to based on any piece of apocalyptic pop culture where humans start fighting eachother.

 

The Kingdom of Belgium is a federal state, so is MuriKa.

Is too much Democracy possible? If so, where should the line be drawn?

 

well of course, do you know what happens if you put Walloons and Flemish together? let me tell you, it involves naked children pissing in the street!

such things should obviously be avoided.


Why not take Germany as an example?

 

huh? pretty sure we send food and blankets and stuff to disaster areas as well, and use our military to do it. what do you send?

 

I have done the above many dozens of times over the years, via official and unofficial church groups. So have virtually all of my friends and family.

 

we sent a few people who know how to build and maintain dykes better than the french Bane Shift you had around new orleans.

we also sent some oil skimmers sometime ago but you sent those back.

most other places we send in businessmen and money.

there are probably a lot of things wrong with this but I don't feel like going for it. so good for you

 

Absolutely correct, BP.

And if you study the deliberate design of our great nation, you will learn that the only thing our founders feared more than factionalism was pure (direct) democracy. This is why were designed as a representative republic and NOT a democracy.

"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself [democracy]; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787

The EC is undemocratic.

On purpose.

We ain't a democracy, never were.

 

for us it was the Spanish and getting murdered for religious differences.

but things change and the Spanish are okay once you get to know them.

you never tell me why you won't consider a form of indirect democracy where there is proportional representation, is it because you believe some rich dudes 300 years ago had all the answers?

 

makes sense, thanks

 

1) MuriKa already has fair amount of proportional representation.

2) I don't believe any one human being has all the answers.

 

can't find ya, wikiped out of date? which elections use PR?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propo...f_countries_using_proportional_representation

 

I dont agree with PR. Gives extreme groups more power and leads to fractured, weak governments.

Incidently, it was one of the factors that assisted Hitlers rise to power.

 

Interesting. I did not realize you meant Electoral College only.

Earlier I referenced that California has 53 members in House, while Wyoming has 1. So I done figured that counted.

 

riiiiiiiiiight,

so in your opinion having someone win 46.6% of votes should be the single winner and Firk the 54% of people who voted for different candidates their political ideas are obviously Bane Shift?

 

Of course it isn't perfect, no system is, but I think its better than PR.

 

you think goverments are better if people are NOT REPRESENTED?

You think it is better for the biggest minority to be in charge of ALL the decisions?

are you sure about this?

 

You're grossly exaggerating the flaws in the first by the post system (is that the name?). I believe it is the closest we can get to an accurate representation ofwhat the people want while still actually having a fucjtionjng government. PR is incredibly risky.

 

First past the post. and look at the american political system and look me in the eyes and tell me that is working as intended. answer my previous questions.

also risky? the Firk you talking about?

 

MuriKa is NOT a socialist or communist "utopia", so this political system is more than less working as intended.



By the by, MSM is goo goo ga ga for Fidel Castro even though he was a ruthless tyrant. Trump got this one right too.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...tros-achievements-george-washington-folk-hero

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ld-trump-reacts-fidel-castros-death/94469240/

 

From way back, concerning the EC:

I think for me the thing is... don't get rid of the Electoral College, but reform it so that it's not all-or-nothing for most states.

CA would retain it's 55 votes max, but have those be based upon districts or zones and population centers. Even accounting for jerrymandering it wouldn't likely be 55 to 0 (and likewise Texas and many others would be split), Orange County and some other places would be more likely to go Red for example, so it'd be worth voting in those districts or what have you. Obviously, one would need to reform how districts get drawn (or how easily they get redrawn) to be ideal in the long run, but it would be a start. The distribution of the EC would also be important, I don't know how many of you have looked (I can't seem to find it at the moment) but if you look even at CA you actually have a lot of Red by district/county by surface area, but a lot of those areas are rural and/or low-population, so you have to be careful to not disenfranchise either the metropolitans, nor overly marginalize the rurals and small-townies. And again that's where having proper redistricting laws would likely come in, but even being imperfect, it might still be an improvement.

But getting rid of the Electoral College entirely could easily become problematic, for much of the same reasons why people find aspects of it's current iteration to be problematic.

(It may also be worth re-examining allocations as well, but that's a slightly different issue.)