5 ms·

That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other

by tormeh 12y ago

That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other time is solely with respect to the voting booth. And in the voting booth you can only choose between two parties. You either make the best out of it or you don't.

MadManE 12y ago
How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.
- tormeh 12y ago
  It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.
Tloewald 12y ago
@MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    "It's a bit less shitty" really doesn't help your argument all that much. I'd still rather not live there.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      And I'd rather not live in North Korea, even though it has a stable government. The fact that a place is both (more or less) stateless and a hard place to leave doesn't mean that the former necessarily causes the latter, any more than having a government necessarily means it'll be a murderous dictatorship.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        You have an interesting definition of "stable government" if North Korea is one. They're one death away from complete chaos - if Kim Jong-Un dies, it's probably all-out civil war.
TheHypnotist 12y ago
You are correct but there are third party options. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is poisonous and the public should be made aware of third++ parties.
- ufmace 12y ago
  They already are aware, and correctly dismiss them as pointless. Third parties cannot accomplish anything in a first-past-the-post election system like we have. Any vote for one will essentially be a vote for whichever big party you agree least with. Changing that would require changing the whole government over to a parliamentary system.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Yeah, what the US really need is a proportional voting system where x% of the federal/national votes means x% (+/- rounding error) of the parliamentary seats, with no voting districts or any other excuses. So what's needed is to convince the ruling classes that switching to such a system is worth potentially ruining their and their friends' careers. Luckily, this is not my problem, but it is pretty frustrating to hear Americans discuss politics.
    - ufmace 12y ago
      I wouldn't quite say that we really need to switch to proportional or something else just yet. These type of fundamental changes have the potential for huge unintended consequences, and need to be looked at carefully from every angle. One of the properties of our system the way that it is is that all "radical" elements, where radical is anything outside the national status quo, must join one of the big parties and appeal at least somewhat to all of the interests in that party to get anything done. Going to this sort of proportional system breaks that, for all such radical interests. Sure, being able to vote for a useful Libertarian party, or a tech and science party, sounds nice. But there would also be the radical Christian party, the drug warrior party, the foreign policy hawk party, the isolationist party, union party, big business party, etc, and none of them will be moderated by the need to appeal to the rest of a large party. I also think that everyone is justifiably worried about what a major rewrite of the US constitution, which is what doing that would require, would look like right now.

by tormeh 12y ago

MadManE 12y ago

How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.

tormeh 12y ago
It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.

Tloewald 12y ago

@MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.

icebraining 12y ago
Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  "It's a bit less shitty" really doesn't help your argument all that much. I'd still rather not live there.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    And I'd rather not live in North Korea, even though it has a stable government. The fact that a place is both (more or less) stateless and a hard place to leave doesn't mean that the former necessarily causes the latter, any more than having a government necessarily means it'll be a murderous dictatorship.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      You have an interesting definition of "stable government" if North Korea is one. They're one death away from complete chaos - if Kim Jong-Un dies, it's probably all-out civil war.

TheHypnotist 12y ago

You are correct but there are third party options. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is poisonous and the public should be made aware of third++ parties.

ufmace 12y ago
They already are aware, and correctly dismiss them as pointless. Third parties cannot accomplish anything in a first-past-the-post election system like we have. Any vote for one will essentially be a vote for whichever big party you agree least with. Changing that would require changing the whole government over to a parliamentary system.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Yeah, what the US really need is a proportional voting system where x% of the federal/national votes means x% (+/- rounding error) of the parliamentary seats, with no voting districts or any other excuses. So what's needed is to convince the ruling classes that switching to such a system is worth potentially ruining their and their friends' careers. Luckily, this is not my problem, but it is pretty frustrating to hear Americans discuss politics.
  - ufmace 12y ago
    I wouldn't quite say that we really need to switch to proportional or something else just yet. These type of fundamental changes have the potential for huge unintended consequences, and need to be looked at carefully from every angle. One of the properties of our system the way that it is is that all "radical" elements, where radical is anything outside the national status quo, must join one of the big parties and appeal at least somewhat to all of the interests in that party to get anything done. Going to this sort of proportional system breaks that, for all such radical interests. Sure, being able to vote for a useful Libertarian party, or a tech and science party, sounds nice. But there would also be the radical Christian party, the drug warrior party, the foreign policy hawk party, the isolationist party, union party, big business party, etc, and none of them will be moderated by the need to appeal to the rest of a large party. I also think that everyone is justifiably worried about what a major rewrite of the US constitution, which is what doing that would require, would look like right now.