3 ms·

Are you suggesting that people whose parties cannot win elections should be given wins just because it'd be a shame if those people had no voice, and then you u

Are you suggesting that people whose parties cannot win elections should be given wins just because it'd be a shame if those people had no voice, and then you use an example from an election where the majority of the vote received no win and no voice? What's your claim, exactly? Why should anyone bemoan a party that goes into obscurity given a fair and accessible elections when their views are incompatible with the majority of voters? Why would anyone shed tears over this? The party will adapt or it will be replaced.

nightski 6y ago
I'm merely suggesting that advocating for a single party system in the U.S. is sad. That's it. If anything we need more political parties, not less. I also think that if we did not have the electoral college then democrats would always win and 46% of America would lose its voice. Sure the majority gets it's way, but it's not that large of a majority and it kind of goes against the idea of giving a voice to the minority.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  No-one's advocating for a single party system. As I say, if the Republicans (or Democrats) become unviable due to insufficient people wanting to buy what they're selling, that will lead to a reorientation (either the unviable party changes, or the viable party splits and absorbs part of the non-viable party, traditionally). One-party systems basically never emerge spontaneously from an existing two/multiparty system; they're usually either an early phase in a country's democratic development, or the result of some degree of totalitarianism. > I also think that if we did not have the electoral college then democrats would always win and 46% of America would lose its voice. If that was the case, the Republicans would have to change to be more appealing to the voters. To take a very extreme example, in the 18th century, there were constituencies in Britain which had a population of under a hundred and elected an MP (so-called rotten boroughs), and then there was Manchester, which had a population of a few hundred thousand and didn't have an MP at all. Now, no doubt it was very unfortunate for the people in the rotten boroughs when the system was reformed and they lost their massive overrepresentation, but I don't think many would argue that it was _unfair_. And that reform did cause the Tory party in particular to have to change fairly dramatically to stay relevant. But it changed, and is still relevant today. > it kind of goes against the idea of giving a voice to the minority The US has two legislative houses and an executive president. The minority controls two out of the three, currently. If the electoral college was removed they'd _still_ control one out of the three (it's possible that they lose the senate this time around, but they're doing especially badly right now; they have a substantial built-in advantage in the senate and will tend to hold it). EDIT: Also, it's not like the Republican party represents some sort of weird Borg-like monoculture who agree on everything. It only exists as a single entity because the US system is inimical to more than two parties existing. Lots of its voters aren't really represented by it anyway; they just vote for it because they dislike it less than they dislike the other side.

nightski 6y ago

I'm merely suggesting that advocating for a single party system in the U.S. is sad. That's it. If anything we need more political parties, not less. I also think that if we did not have the electoral college then democrats would always win and 46% of America would lose its voice. Sure the majority gets it's way, but it's not that large of a majority and it kind of goes against the idea of giving a voice to the minority.

rsynnott 6y ago
No-one's advocating for a single party system. As I say, if the Republicans (or Democrats) become unviable due to insufficient people wanting to buy what they're selling, that will lead to a reorientation (either the unviable party changes, or the viable party splits and absorbs part of the non-viable party, traditionally). One-party systems basically never emerge spontaneously from an existing two/multiparty system; they're usually either an early phase in a country's democratic development, or the result of some degree of totalitarianism. > I also think that if we did not have the electoral college then democrats would always win and 46% of America would lose its voice. If that was the case, the Republicans would have to change to be more appealing to the voters. To take a very extreme example, in the 18th century, there were constituencies in Britain which had a population of under a hundred and elected an MP (so-called rotten boroughs), and then there was Manchester, which had a population of a few hundred thousand and didn't have an MP at all. Now, no doubt it was very unfortunate for the people in the rotten boroughs when the system was reformed and they lost their massive overrepresentation, but I don't think many would argue that it was _unfair_. And that reform did cause the Tory party in particular to have to change fairly dramatically to stay relevant. But it changed, and is still relevant today. > it kind of goes against the idea of giving a voice to the minority The US has two legislative houses and an executive president. The minority controls two out of the three, currently. If the electoral college was removed they'd _still_ control one out of the three (it's possible that they lose the senate this time around, but they're doing especially badly right now; they have a substantial built-in advantage in the senate and will tend to hold it). EDIT: Also, it's not like the Republican party represents some sort of weird Borg-like monoculture who agree on everything. It only exists as a single entity because the US system is inimical to more than two parties existing. Lots of its voters aren't really represented by it anyway; they just vote for it because they dislike it less than they dislike the other side.