Do you think that Congress should be dominated by only two parties? In the British Parliament, no single party holds the majority, therefore each and every party has to compromise with each other to hold a majority, that every person affiliated to a party "wins."
It would be like the Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, and Anarchists work together to propose or pass a bill, or the Democrats, Green Party, Socialists, and Communists work together to propose or pass a bill. In each scenario, they will have to work together to get things done, making it more fair. That's what they do in Britain, so it is not a radical idea. Actually, I think they do it in every government where there is a Parliament.
The more major parties the better I dont think all 300 million American's views can be split into two types. I personal dislike Republicans view on there moral issues like abortions and religion, but prefer their view on the economy. I would be forced to vote Democrat even though I disagree with many of there ideas. More partys would solve this and lead to better politics.
The more major parties the better I dont think all 300 million American's views can be split into two types. I personal dislike Republicans view on there moral issues like abortions and religion, but prefer their view on the economy. I would be forced to vote Democrat even though I disagree with many of there ideas. More partys would solve this and lead to better politics.
Yeah, and they could compromise with the Libertarians on how abortion should be handled, but not on how the economy should be handled, but will also have to work with the Anarchists or Tea Party on other things, such as the right to bear arms or the issue of bureaucracy.
I agree with Republicans for the most part... i'm not sure if equal representation by all parties would be the best solution? but maybe if we just had more than just 2 parties represented things would run smoother
That sounds like way to many people, but it is a good idea.
Obviously. The British Parliament only has like five. I listed eight so it would be four on each side.
Gold - Serf
Flag
I agree with Republicans for the most part... i'm not sure if equal representation by all parties would be the best solution? but maybe if we just had more than just 2 parties represented things would run smoother
Why do you think only two parties is good? What about those in the middle like harryoconnor? The ones who agree with certain policies from the Republicans and some from the Democrats? Who should they vote for? Even if there is a middle, there is not a snowball's chance in hell a Libertarian or Green Party member will be president anytime soon.
Actually many parties have tried to have a voice in congress, but most get shut down because Republicans and Democrats have so many members and such a hold on the media. If major news networks gave press to serious smaller parties, there would be a greater variety in congress.
If major news networks gave press to serious smaller parties, there would be a greater variety in congress.
Actually, the way the electoral system is set up, you really can't have 3 parties - it's very tough to have it that way. Popular vote would be better than the current electoral system.
How does this make it more fair. I'd like you to elaborate on the point. I think that it's just another "tyranny of the majority."
Because when people compromise, it makes it fair. Let's say that there is a candy bar near us. Either you can have all of it, I can have all of it, or we both share. It is equal and fair.
Now it's your turn. How does splitting a candy bar in two so that two people receive some a tyranny of the majority?
Actually many parties have tried to have a voice in congress, but most get shut down because Republicans and Democrats have so many members and such a hold on the media. If major news networks gave press to serious smaller parties, there would be a greater variety in congress.
Most dissolve into the Republican or Democratic parties. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who ran as Republican in the 2008 election. Congress needs more diversity, you're right.
I didnt say i did, but its been successful up to now... It really hasn't. I think politics wouldn't be as dirty. Mudslinging, bad advertising, and brainwashing all contribute to a failed system. Even from the Federalists to the Republicans, there have been tensions. I think that it would be more interesting, cleaner, and fair to have a diverse Congress.
[quote] Actually, the way the electoral system is set up, you really can't have 3 parties - it's very tough to have it that way. Popular vote would be better than the current electoral system.
So we must get rid of the electoral college and just have the popular vote. Then we can finally have a diverse Congress.
Because when people compromise, it makes it fair. Let's say that there is a candy bar near us. Either you can have all of it, I can have all of it, or we both share. It is equal and fair.
Some say the sun rises in the east. Some say the sun rises in the west. Clearly we need to compromise - the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
How does splitting a candy bar in two so that two people receive some a tyranny of the majority?
The splitting analogy is simply bad because the two people consent to the splitting (or maybe I'm picturing it wrong). Second - this is only inductive evidence for compromise. This says nothing about whether compromise is good or not except that it can work in certain circumstances, assuming your analogy is even valid in the first place.
I didnt say i did, but its been successful up to now...
It really hasn't. I think politics wouldn't be as dirty. Mudslinging, bad advertising, and brainwashing all contribute to a failed system. Even from the Federalists to the Republicans, there have been tensions. I think that it would be more interesting, cleaner, and fair to have a diverse Congress.
Actually, the way the electoral system is set up, you really can't have 3 parties - it's very tough to have it that way. Popular vote would be better than the current electoral system.
So we must get rid of the electoral college and just have the popular vote. Then we can finally have a diverse Congress.
Politics wouldn't be as dirty ... explain how politics being unclean is an absolute evil in of itself.
So we must get rid of the electoral college and just have the popular vote. Then we can finally have a diverse Congress.
I agree this would more accurately reflect the views of the people. I think that multiple-party competition is generally a good thing because it offers more choices.
Some say the sun rises in the east. Some say the sun rises in the west. Clearly we need to compromise - the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
They will have to compromise eventually. One will have to compromise to say that the Sun actually rises in the east.
The splitting analogy is simply bad because the two people consent to the splitting (or maybe I'm picturing it wrong).
Well, it is either they compromise on who eats it, or nobody eats it. If both want to eat it, then they will have to compromise or else nobody gets it.
Second - this is only inductive evidence for compromise. This says nothing about whether compromise is good or not except that it can work in certain circumstances, assuming your analogy is even valid in the first place.
I can give you many more examples if you want.
Politics wouldn't be as dirty ... explain how politics being unclean is an absolute evil in of itself.
Mudslinging, bad advertising, and brainwashing all contribute to a failed system.
I agree this would more accurately reflect the views of the people. I think that multiple-party competition is generally a good thing because it offers more choices.
Not just choices, but no single party will have the majority. That way, parties with similar views on certain topics will have to compromise to get things done.
