NationStates Jolt Archive

:D
If it werent for the greens fracturing liberal vote and support the democrats would have more power and money.

I like Ralph Nader. Even if he is the Mr. Spock of politics. :)

:D
If it werent for the greens fracturing liberal vote and support the democrats would have more power and money.

You could just as easily say, "If it weren't for the Democrats failing to appeal to Green voters, they'd have more power and money."

No one has a responsibility to stay out of politics just to make it easier for your chosen side. Canada just suffered through 12 years of Liberal rule because the parties on the right splintered and couldn't agree to work together.

You could just as easily say, "If it weren't for the Democrats failing to appeal to Green voters, they'd have more power and money."

No one has a responsibility to stay out of politics just to make it easier for your chosen side. Canada just suffered through 12 years of Liberal rule because the parties on the right splintered and couldn't agree to work together.

But its selfish.
15 vote repug 16 vote democrat, we get a nice moderate-liberal.
Oh, well we want liberal so we'll change that.

15 vote repug 14 vote democrat 2 vote green.
Much better :rolleyes:

The problem with the demos is that they can't create a platform.

I saw a political cartoon that summed it all up.

A Jetliner in a nose dive with the two Elephant pilots fast asleep.

There are two super hero donkeys flying around the plane arguing over what they should do.

Funny, I always liked his name. :p

:D
If it werent for the greens fracturing liberal vote and support the democrats would have more power and money.

You say that as if it's a good thing. I don't think either major party should have power and money. If the U.S. had a proportional voting system, we would have more than two parties representing the people and a lot of this type of stuff would go away.

You say that as if it's a good thing. I don't think either major party should have power and money. If the U.S. had a proportional voting system, we would have more than two parties representing the people and a lot of this type of stuff would go away.

Good idea! im sure they never tried that anywhere, if they did im sure it had amazing outcomes.
You like paint?
Cartoons and paint?
oh yes. HITLER

There's no option for me on the poll. :(

Good idea! im sure they never tried that anywhere, if they did im sure it had amazing outcomes.
You like paint?
Cartoons and paint?
oh yes. HITLER

Huh? Are you serious???

EDIT: No, really. I don't know if you actually believe this or if you're looking for me to angrily attack the wrongness of what you said. Either way, I don't express anger on the boards. :-p

Huh? Are you serious???

Not really no :p
But hitler was elected by proportional rep

Not really no :p

You had me freaked out for a second.

But hitler was elected by proportional rep

Fair enough, but one bad result does not for a bad system make. :-) The advantage to proportional rep is that smaller parties can get a voice and break the two-party system. Only problem would be overhauling the U.S. Constitution, maybe even a whole new convention. And that's like suggesting people don't have belly buttons -- it's just not done.

Duverger's Law linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) for those who like linkies.

Ralph Nader is a great man.

Why don't we have instant runoff voting?

Ralph Nader is a great man.

I don't know about great, but he's good. I voted for him in 2000 not because I thought he'd win, but because I hoped he would get over the 5% popular vote he'd have needed to get matching funds in 2004. I don't think he'd stand a chance in hell of running an effective government as a third-party president in a two-party system, but Ralph Nader does one thing no other candidate does. He brings up issues that no other politician wants to talk about, then he keeps talking about them. Even if you don't agree with his position on the subject, you gotta admit a lot of the issues he brings up need to be addressed one way or the other.

Why don't we have run-off voting?

Because the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow for it in Federal elections. States and local governments can do it because they set up their own rules for their own electoral process.

Because the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow for it in Federal elections. States and local governments can do it because they set up their own rules for their own electoral process.
But it would make more sense.

But it would make more sense.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it won't happen for two reasons:
(1) It has the potential of doubling the number of elections, and therefore it has the potential of doubling the amount of campaign spending.
(2) It would require overhauling the U.S. Constitution, which is tantamount to suggesting we reverse the rotation of the earth.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it won't happen for two reasons:
(1) It has the potential of doubling the number of elections, and therefore it has the potential of doubling the amount of campaign spending.
(2) It would require overhauling the U.S. Constitution, which is tantamount to suggesting we reverse the rotation of the earth.
I'm into it.

Transferrable votes and proportional representation lead to bigger government (study the countries that have switched). It makes ideological sense for Republicans to oppose that.

Not really no :p
But hitler was elected by proportional rep
George Bush Sr. and Jr. were both elected by Electoral college, as was Nixon.

Asquith was elected via a first past the post system, as was Blair.

What's your point?

The Nazis got into power for a whole load of reasons. I'd go into more depth if you want.