Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
ADG...you are the only one talking about "proportional representation" in this discussion. And you have sprinkled your posts with insulting pics and remarks.
Of course the "winner takes all" is bullshit. But that is something that the Republicans and Democrats in each state have set up.
I have already addressed that the two RULING parties have done everything in their power to KEEP power.
Don't be so dense. You keep harping about one tiny part of their scam. I'm talking about a bigger picture.
And no... one-term term limits are NOT a "reactionary" response to a "symptom" of a problem.
Lifetime politicians ARE the problem.
And people who keep voting for the same 2 parties over and over and expect something different to happen are also the problem.
|
What would the Founding Fathers do?!?
So, if you mandate that elected officials serve only one term, and tell people that they can't vote for the party they like, even if they really like it better than what the Libertarians have to offer, then the Libertarians will come to power. Yeah, that makes sense.
We should apply your one-and-done theory to other aspects of society too. Who needs people with experience, or who have learned how to deal with complex budgets, projects, and problems? Let's just replace knowledgeable experienced people with new people every four years because, well, just because, and things are sure to get better.
I guess that I am not understanding how under the current rules, the Libertarian party is going to ever get close to power, when
the best they can muster after 40+ years as a political party is 1% of the vote (and this is during a time of widespread discontent). The Libertarian party has fared pretty badly at every other level of elective government too.
Fair representation voting proposes a system that if implemented would almost certainly gain the Libertarian party some percentage of representation in Congress, then Libertarians could actually get elected and try to test out some of their slogans, and see what it's really like trying to operate government.
However, because I dare mocked your beloved Libertarian party for being ineffectual, you took great umbrage and therefore refuse to consider the concept that I advanced which would help the Libertarian party.
That's what I meant about Libertarians often being their own worst enemy.
When I mock the Libertarian party, it is partly because many Libertarians whom I encounter appear to like to feel as if they are somehow pure and above the fray, and their ideas are so blindingly brilliant and obvious to themselves, that gosh darn it, if only 49% more of the sheeple that vote would just wake up, and give the Libertarians more than the 1% of the vote they currently reside at, all would be better overnight.
Running on widespread discontent with the status quo will only get you so far, then you have to have ideas that people will embrace, and frankly the Libertarian party platform is pretty short on viable solutions (isolationism, unchecked capitalism, barebones/minimal government, etc) - they're very much like their conservative cousins in the Tea Party (although I realize the two groups diverge in a big way regarding abortion, drugs, etc).
Tell me what you find objectionable about Proportional Representation presented in the following video:
How & Why Other Countries have Ended the 2-Party System:
http://www.fairvote.org/
ADG