I'm thinking of joining the (Australian) Democrats. Of course, parties which are very small can have a big influence over here. Only if I get a card, though. No point joing unles I get to be a card carrying member.............
So when all the people believe in one or two major philosophies, their votes should be ignored?DrunkFace wrote:
monopolies or duopolies are a bad thing.Kmarion wrote:
Majority rule is now a bad thing? ^^
You assume that they all believe in one of thos philosophies
A parliamentary system would be better.
You assume majority means they don't. I was addressing the concept. Originally the influence of minor interest (his words) was being praised.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume that they all believe in one of thos philosophies
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So everyone is a sheep and either follows path A or path B. Well unlike you I live in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So when all the people believe in one or two major philosophies, their votes should be ignored?DrunkFace wrote:
monopolies or duopolies are a bad thing.Kmarion wrote:
Majority rule is now a bad thing? ^^
Yes, the influence by the minor parties brings compromise and stops governments from introducing anything they wish. It gives some power back to the opposition (who still represent a large proportion of the nation) to pressure for changes in bills which results in a fairer outcome for the whole population instead of only helping the small majority.Kmarion wrote:
You assume majority means they don't. I was addressing the concept. Originally the influence of minor interest (his words) was being praised.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume that they all believe in one of thos philosophies
I think the problem comes from the whole American System. Those who would consider voting for a third party don't bother because they see it as a wasted vote so chose the preferred party closest to what they want, and those who don't like either of the 2 preferred parties don't bother voting at all. Thus perpetuating the problem further. As I said above there is more the A or B, but America doesn't facilitate for them.
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.DrunkFace wrote:
So everyone is a sheep and either follows path A or path B. Well unlike you I live in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So when all the people believe in one or two major philosophies, their votes should be ignored?DrunkFace wrote:
monopolies or duopolies are a bad thing.
Worked for Hitler.......wait, no it didn't!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.
No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated. Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.DrunkFace wrote:
So everyone is a sheep and either follows path A or path B. Well unlike you I live in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So when all the people believe in one or two major philosophies, their votes should be ignored?
America would work better if it were smaller countries, with their own elections. When one half of the nation wins an election, the other half is pissed the hell off. In recent years it's a bit more than what's historically usual.
*Cough*Confederation*Cough*FallenMorgan wrote:
America would work better if it were smaller countries, with their own elections. When one half of the nation wins an election, the other half is pissed the hell off. In recent years it's a bit more than what's historically usual.
But you're system only works if the majority of America divides broadly into to groups. A system with a greater of number of parties works even if they don't.Kmarion wrote:
You assume majority means they don't. I was addressing the concept. Originally the influence of minor interest (his words) was being praised.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume that they all believe in one of thos philosophies
And since that's pretty much what happens, I'm not sure why it's a problem?ZombieVampire! wrote:
But you're system only works if the majority of America divides broadly into to groups. A system with a greater of number of parties works even if they don't.Kmarion wrote:
You assume majority means they don't. I was addressing the concept. Originally the influence of minor interest (his words) was being praised.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume that they all believe in one of thos philosophies
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Really? So there aren't radically different views among Democrat supporters?
Why is John McCain so different from George Bush?
Why is John McCain so different from George Bush?
Absolutely there are. But that's not what you said.
You said divide "broadly into groups". Republican and Democrat are two groups that are "broadly" divided into.
You said divide "broadly into groups". Republican and Democrat are two groups that are "broadly" divided into.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-05-16 03:26:19)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I didn't say it was a good choice, but these parties have developed over time by winning popular support. If you have any faith in democracy at all, then these parties are the best choices. Maybe not the best candidates themselves, but the parties and their value systems have come out on top.RAIMIUS wrote:
No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated. Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.DrunkFace wrote:
So everyone is a sheep and either follows path A or path B. Well unlike you I live in the real world.
But if there's radical difference between various members then they can't be broadly divided in that manner.FEOS wrote:
Absolutely there are. But that's not what you said.
You said divide "broadly into groups". Republican and Democrat are two groups that are "broadly" divided into.
That's like saying that you can broadly divide culture into 2 groups: Western and non-Western. Technically, yes. But actually, the non-Western is group defined simply as not belonging to another group.
Actually, that's only true if you have a fair degree of faith in the American form of democracy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say it was a good choice, but these parties have developed over time by winning popular support. If you have any faith in democracy at all, then these parties are the best choices. Maybe not the best candidates themselves, but the parties and their value systems have come out on top.RAIMIUS wrote:
No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated. Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-05-16 07:02:59)
i wouldnt count that out, there are a lot of former republicans who are disappointed with the way the party is heading. It has been hijacked by the religious right, and I'm sad to see it go...FallenMorgan wrote:
The third parties make up less than 1% of the votes, which is very sad.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't jest. They may have beaten the Libertarians in the last election, but they still got less than half of a percent of the vote.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Right now, they would be the Democratic-Republicans, the Libertarians and the Green-Party.
All we can hope for is some kind of schism within one of the major parties.
Yeah, a lot of Republicans aren't voting for the non-conservative McCain.S.Lythberg wrote:
i wouldnt count that out, there are a lot of former republicans who are disappointed with the way the party is heading. It has been hijacked by the religious right, and I'm sad to see it go...FallenMorgan wrote:
The third parties make up less than 1% of the votes, which is very sad.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't jest. They may have beaten the Libertarians in the last election, but they still got less than half of a percent of the vote.
All we can hope for is some kind of schism within one of the major parties.
oh, they will, the religious types would never vote dem. I just hope McCain doesn't give in to them.FallenMorgan wrote:
Yeah, a lot of Republicans aren't voting for the non-conservative McCain.S.Lythberg wrote:
i wouldnt count that out, there are a lot of former republicans who are disappointed with the way the party is heading. It has been hijacked by the religious right, and I'm sad to see it go...FallenMorgan wrote:
The third parties make up less than 1% of the votes, which is very sad.
All we can hope for is some kind of schism within one of the major parties.
I think that Americans all across the table agree that McCain suffers from dimentia.S.Lythberg wrote:
oh, they will, the religious types would never vote dem. I just hope McCain doesn't give in to them.FallenMorgan wrote:
Yeah, a lot of Republicans aren't voting for the non-conservative McCain.S.Lythberg wrote:
i wouldnt count that out, there are a lot of former republicans who are disappointed with the way the party is heading. It has been hijacked by the religious right, and I'm sad to see it go...
Fine if you want to get all picky, republicanism.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, that's only true if you have a fair degree of faith in the American form of democracy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say it was a good choice, but these parties have developed over time by winning popular support. If you have any faith in democracy at all, then these parties are the best choices. Maybe not the best candidates themselves, but the parties and their value systems have come out on top.RAIMIUS wrote:
No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated. Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?
Says the man throwing away his vote.FallenMorgan wrote:
I think that Americans all across the table agree that McCain suffers from dimentia.S.Lythberg wrote:
oh, they will, the religious types would never vote dem. I just hope McCain doesn't give in to them.FallenMorgan wrote:
Yeah, a lot of Republicans aren't voting for the non-conservative McCain.
I actually agree with Fallen on this. Of course, this will never happen. If anything, there's a better chance of us uniting with Mexico and Canada than of splitting up again.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
*Cough*Confederation*Cough*FallenMorgan wrote:
America would work better if it were smaller countries, with their own elections. When one half of the nation wins an election, the other half is pissed the hell off. In recent years it's a bit more than what's historically usual.
Srs, your system is fucked up.
If there's something us Euros do well, it's political structure.
If there's something us Euros do well, it's political structure.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
How can you actually say that without knowing what the alternative is like ?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say it was a good choice, but these parties have developed over time by winning popular support. If you have any faith in democracy at all, then these parties are the best choices. Maybe not the best candidates themselves, but the parties and their value systems have come out on top.RAIMIUS wrote:
No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated. Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Clearly you're more realistic that thinking a series of parties with completely different views all vying for a single presidential position will satisfy the greatest number of people.
A true democracy is open for change and will let every voice be heard, holding on to one system just because that's the way it always have been is to be narrow sighted ...
FatherTed wrote:
Srs, your system is fucked up.
If there's something us Euros do well, it's political structure.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................