NationStates Jolt Archive

i was asked today by the wife of an amiable aquaintance/ distant friend to sign a petition to get him on the ballot for congress from the constitution party. i would have but my address is wrong on the voting rolls and i didn't want to mess things up for them. i probably will if i get it straightened out and will probably tell other people about his petition. i do however feel ambiguous about it because the constition party is very far right, and i'm a libertarian leftist. i have no problem signing up myself, but is it moral to give him any other aid since i very much disagree with what the party he is affiliated stands for, though i personally like him and believe he couldn't be any worse in the job than a mainstream political hack.

here's the constitution party's website... moderate they aint.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

About the party: just like the "pro-life" movement, their name doesn't reflect their intentions. Their website makes it clear they do not respect the US constitution at all - they just pick out a few sentences which they like, ignore everything they don't and make other things up in the process. Nothing inherently wrong with that - just a bit odd that you name yourself "constitution party" then.

About your question: US parties are so broad and without identity elections are more about persons than parties anyway. If you are certain this individual is a good choice, regardless of his party, you can help him. Added bonus: the party will not get a much, much worse candidate in.

tim's a good guy, but kind of a born again conspiracy theory type. his position on abortion must have hardened to join this party though, he told me a few years back that while he didn't think abortion was moral, since he couldn't adopt every unwanted child he wasn't going to tell other people what to do in such a situation... that doesn't sound like the constitution party line.

Simple solution: ask him why he joined this party, what his personal opinions currently are and what he will do if his own and the parties opinions differ.

Also show him a copy of the constitution and a bible, and make sure he knows they are not the same document. The site seems to be a tad bit confused in that area.

i was asked today by the wife of an amiable aquaintance/ distant friend to sign a petition to get him on the ballot for congress from the constitution party. i would have but my address is wrong on the voting rolls and i didn't want to mess things up for them. i probably will if i get it straightened out and will probably tell other people about his petition. i do however feel ambiguous about it because the constition party is very far right, and i'm a libertarian leftist. i have no problem signing up myself, but is it moral to give him any other aid since i very much disagree with what the party he is affiliated stands for, though i personally like him and believe he couldn't be any worse in the job than a mainstream political hack.

Let's put it this way: Do you beleive a two party system is ok? I'm a conservative, and I don't. Personally, I beleive parties period are unconstitutional. Moderate's a pretty ambigous term, BTW. I've seen it used to describe people I'd consider both extreme leftists and extreme rightists. IMHO, the more parties we have on the ballot in every state, the sooner we can get back to the pre party system we used to have.

Whether you'd consider that a good or a bad thing though, I'd say is up to you.

i was asked today by the wife of an amiable aquaintance/ distant friend to sign a petition to get him on the ballot for congress from the constitution party. i would have but my address is wrong on the voting rolls and i didn't want to mess things up for them. i probably will if i get it straightened out and will probably tell other people about his petition. i do however feel ambiguous about it because the constition party is very far right, and i'm a libertarian leftist. i have no problem signing up myself, but is it moral to give him any other aid since i very much disagree with what the party he is affiliated stands for, though i personally like him and believe he couldn't be any worse in the job than a mainstream political hack.
Yeah, he could be useful to take votes away from the Republican candidate.

About your question: US parties are so broad and without identity elections are more about persons than parties anyway. If you are certain this individual is a good choice, regardless of his party, you can help him. Added bonus: the party will not get a much, much worse candidate in.
I like to call them: Permenant Grand Coalitions.

He is helping both his friend (which is an honourable goal in itself) and the electoral health of the United States by assisting in such a manner. People need greater choice than two even though you may personally disagree with the philosophy of the Constitution Party.

The trick lies in extending such assistance to Left-wing political groups as well...

Let's put it this way: Do you beleive a two party system is ok? I'm a conservative, and I don't. Personally, I beleive parties period are unconstitutional. Moderate's a pretty ambigous term, BTW. I've seen it used to describe people I'd consider both extreme leftists and extreme rightists. IMHO, the more parties we have on the ballot in every state, the sooner we can get back to the pre party system we used to have.

Whether you'd consider that a good or a bad thing though, I'd say is up to you.

Parties are unconstitutional? I see. How are they? And how would you replace them? Somekind of totalitarian dictatorship, perhaps?

The Constitution only restricts government.

It does not restrict individuals--and it especially does not restrict individuals' freely associating with one another for the purpose of promoting a particular candidate or group of candidates for elected office.

Frredom implies that you have choices available to you. If you are free to vote and there is only one candidate on the ballot then that freedom is nothing. (Ask those that lived in Communist russia). So in supporting anyone in being a candidate you are effectively expanding the freedom of choice of the electrate, regardless of whether you agree with their political views or not.
So yes you are right to do this, from a libertarian perspective (regardless of whether that is a leftist or minimalist one).

Freedom implies that you have choices available to you. If you are free to vote and there is only one candidate on the ballot then that freedom is nothing. (Ask those that lived in Communist russia). So in supporting anyone in being a candidate you are effectively expanding the freedom of choice of the electrate, regardless of whether you agree with their political views or not.
So yes you are right to do this, from a libertarian perspective (regardless of whether that is a leftist or minimalist one).

But there is a downside. While you expand freedom of choice, you limit individual influence. A cigar out of your own box, so to speak.

Proof of point: Green Party in the UK. That's 13% of the votes - that get neither a Councilor, nor an MP and no one else to speak for them either. Effectively disenfranchising yourself.

It ain't the choices, it is about the effect!

But there is a downside. While you expand freedom of choice, you limit individual influence. A cigar out of your own box, so to speak.

Proof of point: Green Party in the UK. That's 13% of the votes - that get neither a Councilor, nor an MP and no one else to speak for them either. Effectively disenfranchising yourself.

It ain't the choices, it is about the effect!

So you should restrict choice to only those that some selection comittee or something believe have a chance of being elected? No way.

What you are missing here is the fact that as a result of the Green Party getting 13% of the votes the green lobby has been considerably empowered. Those in power do not wish to alienate a significant proportion of the electorate.

Democracy is not just about who succeeds in having their representatives elected, it is about demonstrating the opinions of the people to those in power. As such, the more choice the electorate has available, the better their opinions are represented in the actions of those in power. (To a degree of course - the system is not perfect.)

So you should restrict choice to only those that some selection comittee or something believe have a chance of being elected? No way.

What you are missing here is the fact that as a result of the Green Party getting 13% of the votes the green lobby has been considerably empowered. Those in power do not wish to alienate a significant proportion of the electorate.

Democracy is not just about who succeeds in having their representatives elected, it is about demonstrating the opinions of the people to those in power. As such, the more choice the electorate has available, the better their opinions are represented in the actions of those in power. (To a degree of course - the system is not perfect.)


The system is utterly imperfect. The perfection of its emperfection is such that 67% of the Electorate have already indicated that they're going to vote for the 2 Parties that are determined to keep the imperfect system in place.

The Solution: that all those who dislike this perfect imperfection band together, and in each and every district back the NOTA-option most likely to win. We must all hang in together, or we'll be hung seperately.

If you want people to have effective choices ( and not bogus-choices ) then you must teach the opposition to Perfect Imperfection to operate in lockstep.

I think supporting him would have to be the right thing to do. I was at a labour students' society meeting a couple of months back. A Labour MP had been invited to give a short speech and answer questions. One question made her stop and think for some time. I wasn't sure if she was going to answer, but instead jump up and flee the room. But in the end she answered. She said it was a tough question, but it was more important to get someone to vote rather than to get someone to vote for you. She said democracy is about giving everyone a chance to voice their opinion, whether you believe it to be right or wrong. If an action would lead to the gagging of some people, then you are preventing democracy from reaching its true form. So if there are some people who would prefer to vote for a candidate then they should be given that opportunity. Otherwise you are helping to create a state where democracy is merely a populist scam, much like Zimbabwe and Belarus.

As said before find out his major goals if they are similar to the libertarians then support him. I am a member of the constitution party and when ever there isn't a candidate from my party running I vote libertarian. Hey we need people who will stir things up a bit in politics and not just keep putting out the same party prepared dribble.

Dear me! I was thinking that democracy was about allowing each and everyone of us to have a bit of influence on how we run the Country.
( and not by carefully listening, and then ignoring! the vote of a 2/3rd majority )

I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I would recommend that you beware of the law of unintended consequences. If he's on the ballot, he's got a chance--albeit a small one--at winning. Would you be comfortable with him in that position? That's the ultimate decider for me.

i was asked today by the wife of an amiable aquaintance/ distant friend to sign a petition to get him on the ballot for congress from the constitution party. i would have but my address is wrong on the voting rolls and i didn't want to mess things up for them. i probably will if i get it straightened out and will probably tell other people about his petition. i do however feel ambiguous about it because the constition party is very far right, and i'm a libertarian leftist. i have no problem signing up myself, but is it moral to give him any other aid since i very much disagree with what the party he is affiliated stands for, though i personally like him and believe he couldn't be any worse in the job than a mainstream political hack.
Oh no, by no means abandon your ideological assumptions just to support a friend. OMG! That would be t3h sux0rz!!!ONE1111! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I would recommend that you beware of the law of unintended consequences. If he's on the ballot, he's got a chance--albeit a small one--at winning. Would you be comfortable with him in that position? That's the ultimate decider for me.


How many small ones compete for the honour of being the ultimate decider?
*evil grin*

Dear me! I was thinking that democracy was about allowing each and everyone of us to have a bit of influence on how we run the Country.
( and not by carefully listening, and then ignoring! the vote of a 2/3rd majority )
Except--and I'm sure you realize this--there ain't a democracy on the globe, not one where the individual has any real say anyway. The US is a representative republic, and with good reason--direct democracy is too unwieldy to do and inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority and the subjugation and slavery of minority groups. Representative Republics aren't perfect by any stretch, but they're a damn sight better than direct democracy.

Except--and I'm sure you realize this--there ain't a democracy on the globe, not one where the individual has any real say anyway. The US is a representative republic, and with good reason--direct democracy is too unwieldy to do and inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority and the subjugation and slavery of minority groups. Representative Republics aren't perfect by any stretch, but they're a damn sight better than direct democracy.

1 name:

The Canton of Appenzell.

The People vote on the marketsquares by sticking their hands up!

( And the Swiss Federal Government is basically in vacation-mode 11 months of the year )

Not, it is not wrong. It's a liberals duty to make sure that no opinions or viewpoint are censored. Just don't vote for him.

1 name:

The Canton of Appenzell.

The People vote on the marketsquares by sticking their hands up!

( And the Swiss Federal Government is basically in vacation-mode 11 months of the year )

I can see that working in Chicago, NYC, S F, or São Paulo.

"No one move - only three more days and we will have finished counting the hands. "

I can see that working in Chicago, NYC, S F, or São Paulo.

"No one move - only three more days and we will have finished counting the hands. "


You could try the following:

1000 voters get together.

They unanimously vote one guy to represent this one guy to represent all their 1000 votes.

The folks who don't like this one guy also get their man to represent them, on the basis of 1 per 1000.

So everyone is actually represented by someone he actually voted for.

Isn't proportional representation cool?

You could try the following:

1000 voters get together.

They unanimously vote one guy to represent this one guy to represent all their 1000 votes.

The folks who don't like this one guy also get their man to represent them, on the basis of 1 per 1000.

So everyone is actually represented by someone he actually voted for.

Isn't proportional representation cool?

Cascaded representative democracy. Which group of 1000 do I join? One that will vote like me, or do I decide to join one at random. How is this decided?

If by lot then you are back to the same situation as the existing one. 50% +1 vote of those voting are sufficient to silence the rest. The 67% figure given for not being represented are unjust as a large number of those chose not to be represented: by not voting.

If you decide to abstain and then you don't like the result, you have no grounds for complaint. If you voted against something that won, you can not count the abstainees as being opposed. They have stated that they don't care.

It may well be that Bush did not have the support of the majority, but nor was he opposed by the majority (mores the pity). Breaking up the population into groups of 1000 does nothing to eliminate the problem of political apathy. If anything it exacerbates it as it would give more influence to the few politically active persons in a generally politically apathetic group.

All this aside, I stll think that having as many options as possible available on the ballot provides more freedom of choice. The actual voting mecanism is irrelevant to this. (With the possible exception of PR systems - which have other problems.)

Cascaded representative democracy. Which group of 1000 do I join? One that will vote like me, or do I decide to join one at random. How is this decided?

If by lot then you are back to the same situation as the existing one. 50% +1 vote of those voting are sufficient to silence the rest. The 67% figure given for not being represented are unjust as a large number of those chose not to be represented: by not voting.

If you decide to abstain and then you don't like the result, you have no grounds for complaint. If you voted against something that won, you can not count the abstainees as being opposed. They have stated that they don't care.

It may well be that Bush did not have the support of the majority, but nor was he opposed by the majority (mores the pity). Breaking up the population into groups of 1000 does nothing to eliminate the problem of political apathy. If anything it exacerbates it as it would give more influence to the few politically active persons in a generally politically apathetic group.

All this aside, I stll think that having as many options as possible available on the ballot provides more freedom of choice. The actual voting mecanism is irrelevant to this. (With the possible exception of PR systems - which have other problems.)


Basically, any way - pick as you please - have a buffet.

Try the German, Dutch, French or whatever approach.

Just don't pick the Welsh one, for Tony Blair will curse you forever.

One is either 100% for proportional representation - or one is opposed to democracy.

( so how does 67% work out in England?
34% lab-voters. 33% Tories. 21% LibDem 12% Other.
Once the Election is over, the 34% labbies ignore the existence of the other 66%.)
non-proportional democracy equals dictatorship of 34%...

Gods yes! It's fine for people to express their opinions, but for the love of all that is holy, don't hand them the microphone!

One is either 100% for proportional representation - or one is opposed to democracy.

I never said that I supported democracy, and PR demonstrates why I have my doubts.

PR never results in a clear majority in any legislative body. It always (historically that is) results in the formation of coalitions that are created on te basisa of the trading of interests. (I drop my green agenda and you drop your immigration controls and then we can rule together). The end result is a government that does not represent any group of people whatsoever. It represents some of the views of some of the people. It does not even represent all of the views of those in the government itself.
The only exception to this case would be where one group does obtain an overall majority, which results in the that majority doing what they like to the rest of the people.
And PR does not resolve the problem of abstention. If 51% of the nation do not vote, does the legislative assembly reflect this? Only if PR were to be extended to include abstainee representatives who simply vote against any and all proposals (or abstain if the system is such that a majority of the legislative body is needed to pass a law).

Rather than PR I would prefer to see direct democracy, which we do have the technological means to institute if we had the political will to do so. (Which will never exist as you wel know.) At least there you represent your own views, and are not misrepresented by another.

I never said that I supported democracy, and PR demonstrates why I have my doubts.

<snip>



Zero absentees: see Belgium. Mandatory voting.

The Rest: in other words, you don't support democracy.

i was asked today by the wife of an amiable aquaintance/ distant friend to sign a petition to get him on the ballot for congress from the constitution party. i would have but my address is wrong on the voting rolls and i didn't want to mess things up for them. i probably will if i get it straightened out and will probably tell other people about his petition. i do however feel ambiguous about it because the constition party is very far right, and i'm a libertarian leftist. i have no problem signing up myself, but is it moral to give him any other aid since i very much disagree with what the party he is affiliated stands for, though i personally like him and believe he couldn't be any worse in the job than a mainstream political hack.

What is wrong is when we lay aside simple basics like right and wrong to favor a specific party...ANY party...for several reasons.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting someone on the ballot, if you're the type that believes in the democratic process. By adding more options to the ballot, you allow people to better represent their own beliefs in their vote.

If you still feel guilty: any vote for this guy is a vote that the Republican candidate won't be getting, therefore lowering the chance of them winning.

The problem with proportional representation is that an area does not a a true representative of it's area. It may be assigned a politician who's views do not match their own. I think two separate bodies would be preferable. One voted in by PR and the other by FPtP. I'd probably make the PR parliament the primary body though.

Whoever said if you don't support PR then you don't support democracy. Well if YOU don't support preferential voting then you don't support democracy :p PV and PR can work together... it just gets confusing sometimes.

Meh, but what about the direct democracy of California in Brave New World (I think...).

The problem with proportional representation is that an area does not a a true representative of it's area. It may be assigned a politician who's views do not match their own. I think two separate bodies would be preferable. One voted in by PR and the other by FPtP. I'd probably make the PR parliament the primary body though.

Whoever said if you don't support PR then you don't support democracy. Well if YOU don't support preferential voting then you don't support democracy :p PV and PR can work together... it just gets confusing sometimes.

Meh, but what about the direct democracy of California in Brave New World (I think...).


*giggle*

I must say I have my severest doubts about extolling the virtues of Snarks.

The great thing about PR is that it A] exists and B] works.

Anything else isn't democracy.

One voted in by PR and the other by FPtP.
See: Federal republic of Germany.
Works fine.
*eyebrow askew*
And it considers itself as a democracy, and votes and behaves like one.


Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

The problem with proportional representation is that an area does not a a true representative of it's area. It may be assigned a politician who's views do not match their own. I think two separate bodies would be preferable. One voted in by PR and the other by FPtP. I'd probably make the PR parliament the primary body though.

Whoever said if you don't support PR then you don't support democracy. Well if YOU don't support preferential voting then you don't support democracy :p PV and PR can work together... it just gets confusing sometimes.

Meh, but what about the direct democracy of California in Brave New World (I think...).

I'm a solid INDEPENDENT voter. I refuse to follow ANY party...because, when all is said and done it's head is still a politition. Politicians are (I believe) pathological liars...and who in their right mind would deliberately ally him or her, self with someone they know IN NOT SPEAKING ANY TRUTH, ONE WORD OUT OF TEN?

Zero absentees: see Belgium. Mandatory voting.

The Rest: in other words, you don't support democracy.

Brazil, where I live has mandatory voting as well. It is a travesty. It means that the politicians do not have to persuade people to support them, they just engage in mud slinging. After all if the population have to vote, then they will vote for the least bad.

As I said, I have my reservations about representative democracy, and I do not find PR to be democratic. It does not result in governance by the demos. However I do not know of a better system than voluntary voting in a representative democracy.
PR in the UK would result in no government at all and elections every few months as first this alliance and then that fell apart. I appreciate that in a FPTP system with more than 2 parties, the majority are not necessarily represented, but they would not be represented in any system.

Brazil, where I live has mandatory voting as well. It is a travesty. It means that the politicians do not have to persuade people to support them, they just engage in mud slinging. After all if the population have to vote, then they will vote for the least bad.

As I said, I have my reservations about representative democracy, and I do not find PR to be democratic. It does not result in governance by the demos. However I do not know of a better system than voluntary voting in a representative democracy.
PR in the UK would result in no government at all and elections every few months as first this alliance and then that fell apart. I appreciate that in a FPTP system with more than 2 parties, the majority are not necessarily represented, but they would not be represented in any system.

You are, I hope, familiar with the National Unity Gov't as existed in the UK from abouts 39 till 45? Apart from that, it pretty much works as planned in most other places where they have it...



Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

You are, I hope, familiar with the National Unity Gov't as existed in the UK from abouts 39 till 45? Apart from that, it pretty much works as planned in most other places where they have it...
Being British - yes. It was the only recent perid when the UK could be considered to not have been some form of democracy. It worked, and it was the right thing to do, but it was not democratic. In times of war a country does not need democracy it needs decisive and efficient leadership.



Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Huh? Where has this come from? Have I implied that I am an arthurian/asolute monarchist or anything of the sort? I have said that although I have my reservations about democracy, it is the best system we have.

Being British - yes. It was the only recent perid when the UK could be considered to not have been some form of democracy. It worked, and it was the right thing to do, but it was not democratic. In times of war a country does not need democracy it needs decisive and efficient leadership.





Huh? Where has this come from? Have I implied that I am an arthurian/asolute monarchist or anything of the sort? I have said that although I have my reservations about democracy, it is the best system we have.


I must beg your tongue-in-cheeked forgiveness. I was using The Constitutional Peasant as the perfect tool to lampoon non-PR forms of Government. I could distinguish between Divine Right and FPTP - but I'm ( *grin * ) too subtle to do so.

I must beg your tongue-in-cheeked forgiveness. I was using The Constitutional Peasant as the perfect tool to lampoon non-PR forms of Government.

Would you care to explain that for those of us that are not ashamed to say "I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about".

Would you care to explain that for those of us that are not ashamed to say "I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about".

It's a Monty Pyton quote old man. From Monty Python and the Holy Grail if I'm not mistaken.

Would you care to explain that for those of us that are not ashamed to say "I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about".


http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/finalripoff.htm#Peasant

King Arthur explains to the peasant why he's King.

Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

It's a Monty Pyton quote old man. From Monty Python and the Holy Grail if I'm not mistaken.

Duh!
*goes off and quietly commits suicide*

It's a Monty Python quote, from The Holy Grail.

I have a distinct dislike of proportional representation. Particularly when combined with compulsory voting (as in the Autralian Senate), PR is a gurantee of poor government, as unless there is a massive swing one way or another, you will almost always have a tiny minority party holding the swing vote.

Thus, that tiny party, which only a few voted for and which may espouse radical or extremist policies, decides what is to be law.

That ISN'T democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority with respect for the rights of the minority. One man, one vote, by district is the best way to ensure that.

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
I beg to differ. When everything is accounted for it makes just as much sense as any other system. You might even get lucky in the sword lobbing system, which by no means would happen in a democracy. You'd always get some cunning Machiavellian bastard who'd been voted in by the plebs. In a Monarchy or Aristocracy everyone one of the rulers is inbred and ability to rule is worked by the preposteriousness of ones accent. In a tyranny the tyrant is only looking out for numero uno. Oligarchy presumes that those who are proficient in making money are proficient in art of governence. Timocracy presupposes that a warrior class is not going to start fighting amongst themselves for honour and thus forgetting the outside threat of the other city states. Plato thought philosophers might be able to get their heads out of the clouds at least every week - yeah right. And finally the anarchists mistakenly think that they and everyone else are actually capable of rational thought.

So all in all the watery bint and her scimitar sounds quite appealing.

I
That ISN'T democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority with respect for the rights of the minority. One man, one vote, by district is the best way to ensure that.

With a wide choice of options at the time of voting. Hence the OP was right to support the nomination of someone he is politically opposed to as a candidate.

With a wide choice of options at the time of voting. Hence the OP was right to support the nomination of someone he is politically opposed to as a candidate.

Damn straight.

I dont have a problem with PR. MMP seems like a good system to me.
I expect like any other MMP and all PR systems have flaws, but that makes them consistent with other voting systems.

If no party can form a majority with other parties without very big compromises, then it would seem that no party's policies have a strong or popular mandate amongst electors.

If there is a strong (or popular) mandate or widely prefered policy direction amongst voters, then 'seats on bums' (in Parliament) reflects this and forming coalitions without significant compromises in policy and/or policy direction will be achievable.

Parties are unconstitutional? I see. How are they? And how would you replace them? Somekind of totalitarian dictatorship, perhaps?

Think about it, who's usually lobbying to get rid of write in votes? Parties. Who keeps bringing up voting machines? Parties. All of these are tactics totalitarian states use.

Parties have consistently abused the power allowing them to form has. In some parts of the world, registration and voting for members of them is mandatory, including former democracies.

Don't defend the origin point of a totalitarian state to me and pretend it's anything but, ok? You'll just make yourself sound even stupider then you have in the past.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. There is not party but the republican party end of debate. They are the only american party out there. If we can just get rid of these stupid laberals in congress and the senate who keep trying to oppose us republicans then this nation will be a lot better off.