Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
I do not see how that is true. Although I can't prove or disprove that theory so you may very well be right.
|
It's very simple, really. In "winner takes all"-elections, only the views of the winner have an influence, and only a very limited amount of people/parties are a viable choice.
Because only a very limited amount of people/parties can be considered a viable choice, people are forced to band together in really large groups which don't agree on most issues, so they have to vote on these things themselves.
So, the outcome of elections is based on the biggest group (dem/rep candidate with the most support) of the biggest group (pres candidate with the most support).
Let's say that 60% of all democrat voters actually agree with Kerry (instead of Dean, Clark, etc), and that 50% of voters vote for him. That would mean he wins with a whopping 30% of people really on his side.
But let's not forget that there are far more issues than elections. That means that the only thing that counts is the most popular
combination of views. However, if there are very few parties, that's a huge limitation - in the US right now "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" isn't a choice.
70% of voters may be fiscally conservative, but someone who's fiscally liberal can win based on other issues or even based on the "negative vote", i.e. people not wanting the other guy to win. There's something seriously fucked about that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
However, I can assure you that the system you mentioned previously ensures that only a small percentage of the people are represented, as the way it works currently in Canada proves. The minority have absolutly no say in any matters and are usually shut out or shouted down if they even try to do so. The majority leaders are even so cockey about it, they have no problem laughing them off in public and admitting how corrupt they are because there is nothing to stop them.
|
I have no idea whatsoever about Canada and it's politics, so I can't really comment on that.
However, I can say that in a well-executed parliamentary system, on most issues the positions that determine the actual decisions necessarily have to be backed by the majority of people.
Perhaps even more important, the minority always gets a voice in parliament. In the US, on the other hand, the minority (libertarian voters, green party voters) get no official voice whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
I agree with you that no system is perfect, and in America we have our fair share of flaws to deal with. However, I still think its the best system by far.
|
Why? Why do you consider the actual
system to be superior? What makes it better than a parliamentary system?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
In any matter, I cannot agree on any system that does not allow its people to directly select its leader. I believe that is very important.
|
In the system I spoke about, the leader is directly elected by the people. However, he isn't all-powerful in the executive branch of the government, but rather has to share his power with those representing a majority of the people.