4 ms·

With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topic

With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one side. So what is the point?

marcinzm 5y ago
This is a law in one state out of 50 so you have a decent choice of other options.
- goatherders 5y ago
  You don't seem to understand "precedent"
version_five 5y ago
That's a failing of democracy isn't it. One optimum is to make it so the only people in your jurisdiction are those that all want the same thing. This is an argument for a strong constitution and court system and against direct democracy.
- flailingroof 5y ago
  It's certainly a failing of the flawed US democracy, but fortunately there are much better ways to implement democracies.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    They all have their flaws. Parliamentary democracies, for example, are susceptible to minority extreme views having massive weight if they are needed to keep a coalition in power. Direct democracies are the opposite with minority views being ignored. edit: Also, one needs to separate the impact of the democratic system from that of the social/cultural system. A country with a very homogenous population tends to have less issues under any system of government.
    - flailingroof 5y ago
      Yes, but "no perfect option" doesn't imply "no better option". I could also counter that the extra weight to "minority extreme views" is much less of an issue than most votes in most US states being meaningless because of the first past the post system on a state basis. But I don't really see this as a meaningful discussion, it's undebatable that the US system is flawed to the point where it can't be called a real democracy.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
conductr 5y ago
You are the non-voting majority here

marcinzm 5y ago

This is a law in one state out of 50 so you have a decent choice of other options.

goatherders 5y ago
You don't seem to understand "precedent"

version_five 5y ago

That's a failing of democracy isn't it. One optimum is to make it so the only people in your jurisdiction are those that all want the same thing. This is an argument for a strong constitution and court system and against direct democracy.

flailingroof 5y ago
It's certainly a failing of the flawed US democracy, but fortunately there are much better ways to implement democracies.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  They all have their flaws. Parliamentary democracies, for example, are susceptible to minority extreme views having massive weight if they are needed to keep a coalition in power. Direct democracies are the opposite with minority views being ignored. edit: Also, one needs to separate the impact of the democratic system from that of the social/cultural system. A country with a very homogenous population tends to have less issues under any system of government.
  - flailingroof 5y ago
    Yes, but "no perfect option" doesn't imply "no better option". I could also counter that the extra weight to "minority extreme views" is much less of an issue than most votes in most US states being meaningless because of the first past the post system on a state basis. But I don't really see this as a meaningful discussion, it's undebatable that the US system is flawed to the point where it can't be called a real democracy.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

conductr 5y ago

You are the non-voting majority here