The only reason I brought it up is that it seems an oddly specific concern to have. You’re in favor of a system that allows for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election (at least from what I gather from our past electoral college discussions), but otoh you’re afraid of watering down the 51% concept you don’t actually care about?
I think it’s a fair concern to have, depending on what this third party represents. Or it could be the best thing since sliced bread. I am not committed to any objection, per se. All I was expressing that multiple party systems isn’t a guarantee of anything good and could in fact be bad.
I am pissing on the parade simply as food for thought. A pause, if you will.
Even in multiparty systems, the parties are still some place in the sliding scale of conservative or some sliding scale of liberal politics. So you still really have a binary system represented by varying extremes of a conservative or liberal subsets.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not you see the left/right scale as reflecting how people think or if people are forced to conform to some label. I believe it doesn’t reflect how people think and most of us see things from both sides we like.
It’s also a great way to get people to comply with 30% of things they disagree with in exchange for 70% of things they do.
It’s shitty bundle cable packages. Brought to you, by Comcast (Congress, hue). More choice is very rarely a bad thing for the consumer.
3 Likes
It’s the best way that I can think of to elect a candidate that the overwhelming majority of people hate. We may have had two unpopular candidates for POTUS last year but about half the people liked one or the other.
1 Like
I don’t think half the voters liked one or the other; they only liked one OVER the other. Also, more than two parties isn’t just about the president.
1 Like
The point is the same. If we have two candidates running for President in most cases about half the country will prefer one over the other. If there are 5 candidates running for President in the general election around 80% of the people will most likely prefer someone other than the winner. That doesn’t mean that the person who won will not be able to get things done but it would be very difficult. The same thing applies for other offices below POTUS.
I can understand the attraction of multiple candidates but in reality it would be a mess of monumental proportions for the unfortunate person who ended up winning. The two party system has served us well through the years. The problem now is not one of party its one of people.
Umm. Well… that’s more than its own thread. That could be an entire debate series on its own.
2 Likes
Lots of unpacking for sure … I’d imagine Zecarlo, pfury and pat would write a book about the semantics (source: see Eugenics thread)
1 Like
I won’t even click on that thread any more. The counter says that there’s 180 some unread posts. Every time I see it “nope”.
1 Like
I pop in but never read past like 3 or 4 posts … then I scroll all the way to the bottom to reset the counter
2 Likes
The point is not the same. Settling for the candidate you hate least is not the same as voting for the candidate you like more. We shouldn’t have to hold our noses when we vote.
I would start with, the two party system has served the two parties well.
1 Like
I was one of those who hated one more than the other. I liked neither, but I wasn’t going to waste my vote on a write-in when one of the two were going to win regardless. I understand doing that. But behind all the bluster there is policy that I have interest in getting done. Those interests are more supported by the reps, than the dems.
I don’t have time for pantie-wasted politics, safe zones, and PC bullshit. The dems aligning themselves with identity politics and abortion at all costs pretty much ensured that until they change their platform, I cannot vote for them, save for like, labor commissioner or something like that.
1 Like
meh… I am done there. I don’t think I will be going back. At some point, you got to cut things off or there will be an eternal back and forth. It’s already gotten circular as some things have been repeated several times. When that happens and you know your opponent has to have the last word, it’s best to let them have it. If I don’t read it, I won’t be inclined to respond.
just so you know, I was mainly just teasing you 3
1 Like
I accept your concession speech.
1 Like
More like instigating. I can respect that.
1 Like
The greatest nation on the face of the earth. And…it was primarily built on a two party system. So, I don’t see where there is much of a debate.
That logic is a bit faulty. Just because we’re awesome doesn’t mean every part of our culture/governance/jurisprudence made us that way.
Did the income tax contribute to our greatness?
How about Jim Crow?
You get the picture. The counterpoint to your argument would be: “think how much better we’d be if we didn’t have this two party system.”