Who is really to blame for the Holocaust?

[Sander]

Not true. The Two Party system keeps the country from being controlled by a majority government. To see how a majority government is a bad thing, one need only look at Canada.

Bleh-what? "majority is bad"? Huh?

In America, the purpose of a third party isn't to win the national election, but to steal as many votes away from the major parties as possible. The idea is that by taking enough votes from the parties, the parties will implement their own agendas. A prime example of a third party affecting the larger was the Bull Moose Party. Though, it had the benefit of having Theodore Roosevelt as its candidate.

And you think that this is better than actually getting votes and DOING something with those votes?

Currently the most succesful third party is the Libertarian Party. They haven't made strong showings in congress or the presidency, but they hold more local positions than the other 3rd parties.

That's the entire point. If you had a decent multi-party system, the Libertarian party would not only have gotten more votes, but also actual places in congress.

Of course, a two party system has its faults, but its no worse than Parliamentary governments.

You're confusing two things here. A two-party system can still have parliamentary government.
Parliamentary government doesn't have anything to do with how many parties you can choose.

The two-party system is fucked up because it doesn't allow people to choose what they want to choose. Or rather, it allows them to do so, and then does absolutely nothing with it. Nothing whatsoever. The "democracy" of the USA forces you to choose between two parties you probably don't agree with, or throw away your vote. This is bad.
Any socialist lobby has no influence. Any social-democratic hasn't one either. It's impossible for moderate republicans to vote moderate, and it's impossible for any libertarian to get any influence. That's stupid.

Actually, the local governments having too much power is exactly why the electoral system has these perceived problems.

Some states like Maine divide their electoral votes proportionally with the Popular Vote, while others use a winner-take-all aproach.

Stop mixing things up, please. That has nothing to do with the local governments getting more power, but with the way in which people are elected.
I was talking about a system where there are general elections that are actually general (meaning that there is a nationwide popular vote), but in the mean time giving local governments seperate power. This achieves the effect of having representatives for the local people, since the local governments can change things, but it also allows for a decent nationwide and local vote where you can choose what you want to without having to go "hmm, does this guy have a chance of winning?"

Also, a political revolution is defined as the overthrow of one government in exchange for another, but a rebellion is defined as open, armed, and organized resistance against a constituted government.

Does that make a failed revolution a rebellion? Does a rebellion become a revolution when it succeeds?

Yes and yes. You know, word definitions aren't exactly difficult.
By the way, why did you bring in rebellion? The word wasn't even mentioned.

 

[Bradylama]

Or rather, it allows them to do so, and then does absolutely nothing with it.

They can't do anything with it because not enough people vote for third parties. The idea that you're wasting your vote by voting for a third party is a fallacy perpetuated by the voters themselves, especially now. People think that voting third party instead of Democrat is a mistake because we HAVE TO GET RID OF BUSH! But the Democratic candidate isn't a helluva lot better, if at all. So we HAVE to choose the lesser of two evils?

Its humans that are at fault, not the system. So stop saying the system sucks.

This achieves the effect of having representatives for the local people,

In case you didn't know, the state electorates are the representatives of the local people. How they vote based on the popular vote in the state is determined by state laws.

Bleh-what? "majority is bad"? Huh?

Yes, a majority government is bad because it leaves a large amount of people without representation. In Canada, the Liberals have a majority in Parliament, and are thus able to shape legislature according to their whims. This leaves people that support the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, Liberal Democrats, etc. etc. without a voice in government.

Of course, that's not exactly true. Non-Liberal representatives can bitch about Liberal legislation, but they can't do anything to stop it.

 

[Sander]

They can't do anything with it because not enough people vote for third parties. The idea that you're wasting your vote by voting for a third party is a fallacy perpetuated by the voters themselves, especially now. People think that voting third party instead of Democrat is a mistake because we HAVE TO GET RID OF BUSH! But the Democratic candidate isn't a helluva lot better, if at all. So we HAVE to choose the lesser of two evils?

Its humans that are at fault, not the system. So stop saying the system sucks.

You still don't get it, do you? The reason why the two party system sucks is that you have to have a majority somewhere to make a difference. A majority, meaning that you can ONLY change something when you are elected by a majority. In a multi-party system there almost never is one majority, and everyone who votes for the party they agree sees their results.
This is much more representative of the people's convictions because a single party, especially in the case of a two-party system, never really represents the feelings of the majority of the people. THAT is why the system sucks.

In case you didn't know, the state electorates are the representatives of the local people. How they vote based on the popular vote in the state is determined by state laws.

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. Nothing, plus, I already knew that. Read and think about what I say next time.

Yes, a majority government is bad because it leaves a large amount of people without representation.

Que-bleh?
Majority government means a government that has the support of the majority. So basically you're saying that any government that has the support of the majority sucks.

In Canada, the Liberals have a majority in Parliament, and are thus able to shape legislature according to their whims. This leaves people that support the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, Liberal Democrats, etc. etc. without a voice in government.

So completely unlike the USA, where the people who vote libertarian, green or anything non-Democratic or non-Republican don't even get into parliament.

Of course, that's not exactly true. Non-Liberal representatives can bitch about Liberal legislation, but they can't do anything to stop it.

And this wouldn't be any different in a two-party system. It would, in fact be even worse, because there would ALWAYS be a majority party.

EDIT: And, of course, ignoring the vast majority of my post is also a good way of showing that you are right. Remember this people, if you don't reply to someone's argument, you must be right!

 

[Bradylama]

The reason why the two party system sucks is that you have to have a majority somewhere to make a difference.

Actually, a very significant number of presidents were elected without a majority vote. Clinton for instance.

See, Bush lost that election because too many people voted for Ross Perot, who was the Reform Party candidate.

As a result, the Republicans became more libertarian, and the Reform Party was taken over by the likes of Pat Buchannan and other social authoritarians. They failed miserably, however, and now the party is headed by the likes of Nader.

And this wouldn't be any different in a two-party system. It would, in fact be even worse, because there would ALWAYS be a majority party.

Not so. Representatives vote according to their State, not the Party. The Parties serve no greater purpose than an identifier.

All politics are local, and representatives won't vote for something that the party generally accepts if the people they represent don't like it. This is why a lot of Democrats supported the Preservation of Marriage Act.

Not to mention the checks and balances that stop legislation. Such as the President's ability to veto laws, and the Supreme Court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional.

Laws that are vetoed by the president can be overturned, but only with both a 2/3 majority vote in the Congress and Senate.

Ammendments to the constitution also require a 2/3 majority.

The parties are so bipolar that there will never be a significant party majority.

So completely unlike the USA, where the people who vote libertarian, green or anything non-Democratic or non-Republican don't even get into parliament.

At least the Republicans and Democrats have policies that Libertarians, Socialists, etc., etc. support. The same can't be said for the Canadians.

 

[Sander]

Actually, a very significant number of presidents were elected without a majority vote. Clinton for instance.

Which is why having the eletions per state sucks even more: they can't even get the majority bit right. The people are supposed to choose who they feel is right, but not only does it happen that the person the majority of the people prefer is NOT elected, the person who the majority of the people prefer is not like what a lot of people would want.

See, Bush lost that election because too many people voted for Ross Perot, who was the Reform Party candidate.

As a result, the Republicans became more libertarian, and the Reform Party was taken over by the likes of Pat Buchannan and other social authoritarians. They failed miserably, however, and now the party is headed by the likes of Nader.

Your point being?

Not so. Representatives vote according to their State, not the Party. The Parties serve no greater purpose than an identifier.

E-ech. Not so is supposed to have an explanation with it that refers to the point you're contradicting. This has nothing to do with it.

All politics are local, and representatives won't vote for something that the party generally accepts if the people they represent don't like it. This is why a lot of Democrats supported the Preservation of Marriage Act.

And they do this because they have to go back to their little state to get what elected again, instead of having to go through a nationwide election and watching what the majority of the people want.

Not to mention the checks and balances that stop legislation. Such as the President's ability to veto laws, and the Supreme Court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional.

Laws that are vetoed by the president can be overturned, but only with both a 2/3 majority vote in the Congress and Senate.

Ammendments to the constitution also require a 2/3 majority.

And yet again this is completely beside the point. Next time, try responding to WHAT I say and ALL of what I say.

As well as that, the president is elected through the same fucked up system, and is therefore not a good check. The Supreme Court checks for constitutionality, because the constitution is exactly that: a constitution, the basis of the state. By that logic, you should have a greater majority to overrule the basis of the state than a normal law, which is logical. But hey, does this have anything to do with my point? No!

The parties are so bipolar that there will never be a significant party majority.

Right, which is the reason why the Republican party doesn't have a majority in congress or the president in office....

Oh, wait, it does!

At least the Republicans and Democrats have policies that Libertarians, Socialists, etc., etc. support. The same can't be said for the Canadians.

Because, dum-dum-dum, a majority of the Canadians really don't want those policies.
The Democrats and Republicans are really just centrist parties, meaning that very few people are really happy with them, but most support them because "at least they're not so bad" which is basically what you're saying right now. In a normal multi-party nationwide representative democracy people vote for parties they actually really agree with, instead of voting for a party just because there is no better party.

And you ignored the following:
[quote="Sander]In a multi-party system there almost never is one majority, and everyone who votes for the party they agree sees their results. [/quote]

This is much more representative of the people's convictions because a single party, especially in the case of a two-party system, never really represents the feelings of the majority of the people. THAT is why the system sucks.

Que-bleh?
Majority government means a government that has the support of the majority. So basically you're saying that any government that has the support of the majority sucks.

And, of course, ignoring the vast majority of my post is also a good way of showing that you are right. Remember this people, if you don't reply to someone's argument, you must be right!

So completely unlike the USA, where the people who vote libertarian, green or anything non-Democratic or non-Republican don't even get into parliament.

You replied to that without actually replying to it, just like you did with this:

And this wouldn't be any different in a two-party system. It would, in fact be even worse, because there would ALWAYS be a majority party.

And in the post before that:

And you think that this is better than actually getting votes and DOING something with those votes?

That's the entire point. If you had a decent multi-party system, the Libertarian party would not only have gotten more votes, but also actual places in congress.

You're confusing two things here. A two-party system can still have parliamentary government.
Parliamentary government doesn't have anything to do with how many parties you can choose.

The two-party system is fucked up because it doesn't allow people to choose what they want to choose.

Nothing whatsoever. The "democracy" of the USA forces you to choose between two parties you probably don't agree with, or throw away your vote. This is bad.
Any socialist lobby has no influence. Any social-democratic hasn't one either. It's impossible for moderate republicans to vote moderate, and it's impossible for any libertarian to get any influence. That's stupid.

Stop mixing things up, please. That has nothing to do with the local governments getting more power, but with the way in which people are elected.

I was talking about a system where there are general elections that are actually general (meaning that there is a nationwide popular vote), but in the mean time giving local governments seperate power.

This achieves the effect of having representatives for the local people

That was replied to with a non-sequitur.
Continuing:

since the local governments can change things, but it also allows for a decent nationwide and local vote where you can choose what you want to without having to go "hmm, does this guy have a chance of winning?"

Yes and yes. You know, word definitions aren't exactly difficult.
By the way, why did you bring in rebellion? The word wasn't even mentioned.

And, in fact, you didn't actually reply to the issue of revolution and ideology either, you just said something about rebellion/revolution and then left it at that.

 

[Bradylama]

And, in fact, you didn't actually reply to the issue of revolution and ideology either, you just said something about rebellion/revolution and then left it at that.

I get very little sleep nowadays, and I've been up at Ungodly hours. I know being tired is no excuse for bringing up something that doesn't make sense, or apply to anything, so let's just leave it at, I'm an idiot.

Which is why having the eletions per state sucks even more: they can't even get the majority bit right. The people are supposed to choose who they feel is right, but not only does it happen that the person the majority of the people prefer is NOT elected, the person who the majority of the people prefer is not like what a lot of people would want.

And a majority of Germans want leaders like Schroeder? A large number of presidents haven't been elected with a majority vote because of third party alternatives. The most votes does not necessarily equal a majority.

Bush being elected without the most popular votes is an increadible anomoly, and by a very small margin.

But you have to keep in mind that this nation isn't a democracy, its a constitutional republic. The entire political system is based around compromises in population and worth. Votes are granted to states according to their worth, and who those votes go to is determined by state populations.

The structure of American politics is to ensure that everybody has as much voice in government as possible. That's the virtue of our politics that I've been trying to get through.

This is opposed to my Canadian example. In which a slight majority of the population has total representation while the other 45% has none.

The way you talk, one would think that the Two Party system is inherently inferior. I'm merely trying to show that it isn't.

Your point being?

That 3rd Parties can still have a significant impact on national politics without actually gaining any positions.

E-ech. Not so is supposed to have an explanation with it that refers to the point you're contradicting. This has nothing to do with it.

I'm pointing out that there isn't an actual majority. That the two parties are so diversified in policy and perspective ensures that not all representatives will vote on party lines.

And they do this because they have to go back to their little state to get what elected again, instead of having to go through a nationwide election and watching what the majority of the people want.

But they're not representing a majority of the people. They shouldn't. They represent their state.

Right, which is the reason why the Republican party doesn't have a majority in congress or the president in office....

Oh, wait, it does!

Notice how I said "significant" majority. A few more seats in the house doesn't equate to a significant majority.

Because, dum-dum-dum, a majority of the Canadians really don't want those policies.
The Democrats and Republicans are really just centrist parties, meaning that very few people are really happy with them, but most support them because "at least they're not so bad" which is basically what you're saying right now. In a normal multi-party nationwide representative democracy people vote for parties they actually really agree with, instead of voting for a party just because there is no better party.

Well, America is a centrist nation. Maybe people don't want to vote for Socialists, Libertarians, Green, etc. etc. because they find their stances too extreme.

How do you know people don't want to vote for the Republicans or Democrats? For some reason a majority of Democrats wanted Kerry for president.


Going through every single sentance instead of focusing on key points would be a waste of time. But for you, I'll make an exception.

In a multi-party system there almost never is one majority, and everyone who votes for the party they agree sees their results.

And yet, in Canada there is a majority. Just like how in America the election system put a president in office who wasn't voted by a majority of voters. Every system has its liabilities.

Usually in multi-party systems, in order to oppose a party that has the largest number of seats, opposing parties are forced to form political alliances. But then people aren't voting for who they WANT to vote for, they're voting for the party that isn't "So And So." That seems to be something you're against.

This is much more representative of the people's convictions because a single party, especially in the case of a two-party system, never really represents the feelings of the majority of the people. THAT is why the system sucks.

Yup. It is one of its faults. But the possibility of a majority government in a multi-party system is what makes it suck.

Majority government means a government that has the support of the majority. So basically you're saying that any government that has the support of the majority sucks.

Yup. I say this because a majority isn't always right. A majority of Germans, for instance didn't seem to mind the Jews being killed.

And, of course, ignoring the vast majority of my post is also a good way of showing that you are right. Remember this people, if you don't reply to someone's argument, you must be right!

I'm defending the Two Party System. Your defense of a multi-party system doesn't have anything to do with my position, so I'd rather have not nitpicked everything and forced this discussion into critical mass.

So completely unlike the USA, where the people who vote libertarian, green or anything non-Democratic or non-Republican don't even get into parliament.

Congress is very different from Parliament.

I've already defended 3rd Party politics.

And this wouldn't be any different in a two-party system. It would, in fact be even worse, because there would ALWAYS be a majority party.

I had already covered that.

And you think that this is better than actually getting votes and DOING something with those votes?

Not necessarily. I'm saying that it's better than no representation at all. Which is a liability in the multi-party system.

That's the entire point. If you had a decent multi-party system, the Libertarian party would not only have gotten more votes, but also actual places in congress.

Even though I am a Libertarian, I'd still rather not have the Libertarians gain any significant power in Congress. There are some things that should be the responsibility of a municipality, like highway maintenance.

3rd Parties represent the extremes in American politics.

You're confusing two things here. A two-party system can still have parliamentary government.
Parliamentary government doesn't have anything to do with how many parties you can choose.

Ceded.

The two-party system is fucked up because it doesn't allow people to choose what they want to choose.

A lot of people do want to choose the major parties because they're naturally centrists. The system only forces people to choose between the lesser of two evils when both candidates are terrible. That Kerry is a terrible candidate is the fault of the registered Democrats. They wanted a bad choice, apparently.

Nothing whatsoever. The "democracy" of the USA forces you to choose between two parties you probably don't agree with, or throw away your vote. This is bad.
Any socialist lobby has no influence. Any social-democratic hasn't one either. It's impossible for moderate republicans to vote moderate, and it's impossible for any libertarian to get any influence. That's stupid.

America isn't a democracy. I covered that earlier in this post.

Stop mixing things up, please. That has nothing to do with the local governments getting more power, but with the way in which people are elected.

The local governments having power is exactly what determines how people get elected. Once again, Republic, not Democracy.

I was talking about a system where there are general elections that are actually general (meaning that there is a nationwide popular vote), but in the mean time giving local governments seperate power.

Indeed. But here the local governments are given representation in the Federal government. This doesn't make it inferior to your system.

This achieves the effect of having representatives for the local people

No it doesn't. It achieves the effect of having representatives for a majority of people. If representatives reflect the wishes of the majority of the party, how are they reflecting the wishes of the majority in Bavaria? (I don't know any provinces in The Netherlands)

since the local governments can change things, but it also allows for a decent nationwide and local vote where you can choose what you want to without having to go "hmm, does this guy have a chance of winning?"

The local governments only change things locally, though.

Yes and yes. You know, word definitions aren't exactly difficult.
By the way, why did you bring in rebellion? The word wasn't even mentioned.

Again, I am an idiot.


I haven't had a discussion this interesting in a while.

 

[Sander]

And a majority of Germans want leaders like Schroeder? A large number of presidents haven't been elected with a majority vote because of third party alternatives. The most votes does not necessarily equal a majority.

Nope, it does, however, mean that you have the largest minority.
And at the time when Schroeder's party was elected, the largest minority wanted Schroeder.
Plus, you're not understanding what a multi-party system means. It doesn't mean that one party with a minority of votes gets to decide what to do, it means that each and every issue needs to get a majority of votes for itself, just like in the USA, but this time the population's opinion is properly represented instead of being represented by people they don't agree with and chose because there were no better people to select.

Bush being elected without the most popular votes is an increadible anomoly, and by a very small margin.

Uh-uh. Which is, of course, why you said this:

Actually, a very significant number of presidents were elected without a majority vote. Clinton for instance.

That doesn't add up.

But you have to keep in mind that this nation isn't a democracy, its a constitutional republic

Mine's a consitutional monarchy, yet it's more democratic and more republican than yours.

The entire political system is based around compromises in population and worth.

Which is good, why exactly?

Votes are granted to states according to their worth, and who those votes go to is determined by state populations.

yes, I know that too. I know how the system works.
And you do too, but you fail to explain why this system is good, which is more important than how it works.

The structure of American politics is to ensure that everybody has as much voice in government as possible. That's the virtue of our politics that I've been trying to get through.

And failed. Because, quite simply, that is NOT the virtue of your politics. Socialists, libertarians, social democrats, left-wingers of any kind, fascists, islamists and hundreds of other groupings have NO INFLUENCE. You think you have a left-wing party? Wake up and smell the roses, the Democrats are as right wing as the most right-wing party in my nation.
Quite simply put: the system that hs been put in place has made sure that there can only ever be two parties that matter, and it has also made sure that the people perpetuate this through not voting for non-centrists because they may lose their vote. Douglas Adams had a nice bit of text about it, he described a species where the humans were dominated by a ciompletely different race, and the humans could vote for those people of a completely different race for government.
"Then why don't the humans vote for other humans."
"Because then maybe the wrong person from that other race may come to power."
it's a self-perpetuating system.
As a consequence of that, most people cannot vote for what they want. Most people vote because they don't want the OTHER party in place, or they think "well, it's better than the other party".

And yet, in Canada there is a majority. Just like how in America the election system put a president in office who wasn't voted by a majority of voters. Every system has its liabilities.

This is completely different, because in Canada, the people had a choice to vote for another party, and that choice would've mattered. Meaning that a majority of the people really want that party to have a majority, as opposed to the USA, where a majority of the people simply don't see a a better choice. There's a huge difference, and I think that the fact that you're living in the USA is blinding you from this difference.
Let me tell you a small anecdote: when I was in the governmental seat of the Netherlands for a historic tour, I joined up with the English tour, because the Dutch tour was going too start an hour later. There were several Americans present, and when we got to the current parliament hall, the tour guide started explaining our system of government. The Americans all thought it was stupid and didn't actually get it. First you get questions like, "who's your man in the government", based on the fact that each senator has his own state, which simply doesn't happen here. There were all sorts of questions that seem really silly, but this was purely due to the fact that the Americans simply did not get it.

This is opposed to my Canadian example. In which a slight majority of the population has total representation while the other 45% has none.

The way you talk, one would think that the Two Party system is inherently inferior. I'm merely trying to show that it isn't.

Again: you're wrong. The other 45% does have a vote, namely the same vote as the 55%. They chose for a different party or a different guy, and that(those) guy or party just didn't have as much votes as the libertarians. That's the entire principle of democracy.

hat 3rd Parties can still have a significant impact on national politics without actually gaining any positions.

And you keep trying to defend this, and won't accept the simple fact that having an influence through influencing the policies of OTHER parties isn't nearly as good as actually having governmental offices.

I'm pointing out that there isn't an actual majority. That the two parties are so diversified in policy and perspective ensures that not all representatives will vote on party lines.

And this is good, why exactly? If I choose a party to vote for, I choose it because I know it will vote how I want it to vote. The differences with how I would vote would be minimal. But in the two-party system you have, people can vote for their senator, congressman or president, and have the president not vote according to their own wishes. That is bad, period!
See, if you compare two different things: having two parties that don't vote according to their voters' wishes, or having a lot of parties that DO vote according to their voters' wishes (which, by the way, isn't guaranteed either, since the parties are mainly there for ease of election), the second one is clearly superior to the first one.

But they're not representing a majority of the people. They shouldn't. They represent their state.

Which is bad. If you had the state rule itself and then have the general nationwide representative election you would have nation officals elected according to the voters' wishes, and you would have state officials to deal with the local concerns and make sure that everything goes smoothly there.

Notice how I said "significant" majority. A few more seats in the house doesn't equate to a significant majority.

Nope, but it is enough to pass any laws that don't offend the constitution, which is, by the way, the principle of the constitution.

Well, America is a centrist nation. Maybe people don't want to vote for Socialists, Libertarians, Green, etc. etc. because they find their stances too extreme.

Haha! A majority doesn't want to vote for them, but a minority does. And by refusing to give that minority any practical influence, you're NOT GIVING THEM A VOTE.

How do you know people don't want to vote for the Republicans or Democrats? For some reason a majority of Democrats wanted Kerry for president.

Note the 2000 elections. Note the amount of votes for the 3rd party candidate. Note how no 3rd party has any influence whatsoever.

Usually in multi-party systems, in order to oppose a party that has the largest number of seats, opposing parties are forced to form political alliances. But then people aren't voting for who they WANT to vote for, they're voting for the party that isn't "So And So." That seems to be something you're against.

Actually, it's completely impossible to oppose a party that has a majority. That's the downside of politics where you can vote for who you want: almost no-one has a majority, and everyone needs to work together. This, of course, leads to compromises and deliberation to get majority votes for laws, and, moreover, this leads to every minority being represented and actually having a say in what happens. People vote for the parties they agree with, and these parties try to get those ideas through. If there is no majority for an issue, then it isn't passed. Because everyone has chosen the people they agree with, you can be sure that these issues will be voted for in such a way that the people agree with it.

Yup. It is one of its faults. But the possibility of a majority government in a multi-party system is what makes it suck.

First, you don't really understand how multi-party systems work. There almost never is a majority, so everyone will have to deliberate to get majority votes. See above.
If there is a majority, this majority shows exactly what the people want. Done and done, no more problems. A majority wants that, so it's all good. The reason why there is a consitution is to kerb the wills of people who want to destroy the system and the basis of western "culture", like the equality of everyone.
Note that Hitler got to absolute power not through a majority support, he only had 33% of the votes, but through scheming.

As well as that, you assume that there can be no majority in a two-party system. So do you then think that if there was a two-party system the libertarians would not have just as great a majority, if not a greater one? ANd that they wouldn't just vote according to the party? Because if that's what they're doing in a multi-party system, there's no reason for them to not do it in a two-party system.

Yup. I say this because a majority isn't always right. A majority of Germans, for instance didn't seem to mind the Jews being killed.

This is very much true. However, no-one actually voted for it, and it's probable that most people turned a blind eye and didn't want to know about i. And there wasn't a majority support for Hitler when he got elected either. Hitler's extermination of the Jews was solely his decision, not the people's decision nor was it ever backed, directly or indirectly, by a majority vote of the people.

Congress is very different from Parliament.

YOu know what I mean.

Not necessarily. I'm saying that it's better than no representation at all. Which is a liability in the multi-party system.

Eh-bleh? Eh-BLEH???
The entire PRINCIPLE of the multi-party system, as I've been TRYING to explain, is to give EVERYONE their representation. And now you're saying that this doesn't happen in a multi-aprty system, and happens better in a two-party system?
Right, so, again, where4 are the socialists, greens, libertarians, communists, social-democrats, fascists, muslims, hindus, buddhists, blacks, hicks, hispanics, immigrants...
Should I go on?
Get this: they have no vote. "yes, but not everyone in the parties vote according to their parties wishes" *smack* They have not voted for the kind of voter they would like to see in office. "Yes, but among those voted for there is bound to be someone who votes for what they want" Are you willing to take the risk of "there must be someone who would vote for that" over "I"m certain that there's someone voting for that"?

Even though I am a Libertarian, I'd still rather not have the Libertarians gain any significant power in Congress. There are some things that should be the responsibility of a municipality, like highway maintenance.

And in a multi-party system you would probably have found a party you would agree with, as opposed to finding a party you don't want because you don'ttotally agree with them.
Interestingly, you're basically proving my point with that bit of text.

3rd Parties represent the extremes in American politics.

And the problem is that the extremes have no vote.

A lot of people do want to choose the major parties because they're naturally centrists. The system only forces people to choose between the lesser of two evils when both candidates are terrible. That Kerry is a terrible candidate is the fault of the registered Democrats. They wanted a bad choice, apparently.

And in a good representative democracy, you would not have this problem.
People would still remain naturally centrists, would still be able to vote centre, but the extremists would also vote extreme and would know that their votes counted and did something.

America isn't a democracy. I covered that earlier in this post.

The local governments having power is exactly what determines how people get elected. Once again, Republic, not Democracy.

Federation, not republic nor democracy.
See, you think I don't understand that. I do. But that doesn't change a thing about the fact that the system sucks. "But we're a republic, not a democracy". Uh-huh. And Czaric Russia was an Empire, not a democracy. That doesn't mean that the system didn't suck huge donkey balls.

No it doesn't. It achieves the effect of having representatives for a majority of people.

Wrong. It has the effect of having representatives for everyone(or at the very least for the larger majorities) and having those representatives vote on nationwide issues. It's not logical to have locally elected people vote on an issue that concerns much more than just the locals.

For example, if there were local elections in 10 provinces, with each province having one seat in parliament, you could have someone win everywhere by 51-49% except in one province, where the other person wins by a margin of 95-5%. This means that the party in power would have 9 seats but no nationwide majority, and the other man would have 1 seat and nationwide majority support. That happens, and that is exactly why local elections should concern localities only and nationwide election nationwide concerns only.

If representatives reflect the wishes of the majority of the party, how are they reflecting the wishes of the majority in Bavaria? (I don't know any provinces in The Netherlands)

By having local elections in Bavaria and having those locally elected people preside over local events only.
it's illogical to have a majority of Bavaria vote on nationwide issues, just as it's illogical for a nationwide government to vote on local Bavarian concerns.

The local governments only change things locally, though.

The point of local government.

PS: Those things I did not comment on, I agreed with, or you said you agreed with them. (Two or three things). I didn't comment on them for your sake, since you didn't want critical mass.

 

[Bradylama]

Nope, it does, however, mean that you have the largest minority.
And at the time when Schroeder's party was elected, the largest minority wanted Schroeder.
Plus, you're not understanding what a multi-party system means. It doesn't mean that one party with a minority of votes gets to decide what to do, it means that each and every issue needs to get a majority of votes for itself, just like in the USA, but this time the population's opinion is properly represented instead of being represented by people they don't agree with and chose because there were no better people to select.

I uh, I knew what a multi-party system was. You see, I used Canada as an example of what can go wrong in a multi-party system. Obviously, when a party doesn't have a majority of seats, it'll have to make concessions to the other parties in order to pass legislation.

Uh-uh. Which is, of course, why you said this:

Bush was elected without the most popular votes. Gore had the most popular votes.

Clinton, on the other hand, had the most popular votes, but not a majority. Its easy to get that confused, I just had to make sure that majority was more than half myself.

Which is good, why exactly?

Because a federation can't work unless the States are willing to compromise.

Rhode Island was concerned that it would be under-represented in the Federal government, as were other small states. So Congress was divided into two parts: The House, and The Senate. In the House of Representatives, the amount of representatives a state can send is determined by its population. The more people in the state, the more representatives. The smallest states, though, can still send 2 representatives regardless of population. In the Senate, every state has two senators. In making this compromise, they insured that large states like Virginia and Pennsylvania would have the representation they deserved, without overpowering smaller states like Rhode Island.

Senators and Congressmen are elected by the people in the state.

In order to see how that's a good thing, you can refer back to my previous statement where I said that this nation provides as much voice in government as possible. California and Texas may have loud voices, but Rhode Island and Delaware aren't silenced.

Mine's a consitutional monarchy, yet it's more democratic and more republican than yours.

I'd like to know how, exactly. If you wouldn't mind indulging me.

And failed. Because, quite simply, that is NOT the virtue of your politics. Socialists, libertarians, social democrats, left-wingers of any kind, fascists, islamists and hundreds of other groupings have NO INFLUENCE.

That's not true. Do you think the Democrats would have advocated socialist programs if left wing parties didn't threaten to take their votes?

You think you have a left-wing party? Wake up and smell the roses, the Democrats are as right wing as the most right-wing party in my nation.

No shit? Chirac is a Right-Winger in France, as I understand it.

The social and economic dispositions of this nation have more to do with its SOCIETY than the system it has in place. This country is a Christian nation, and as much as I'm sure a lot of you Europeans would like to think that makes us unenlightened, it simply isn't true. I've known men of God that are more intelligent and open-minded than any anarchist or socialist I've met.

I'm beginning to think your detestment of our political system has more to do with cultural differences than objective reasoning.

Quite simply put: the system that hs been put in place has made sure that there can only ever be two parties that matter, and it has also made sure that the people perpetuate this through not voting for non-centrists because they may lose their vote. Douglas Adams had a nice bit of text about it, he described a species where the humans were dominated by a ciompletely different race, and the humans could vote for those people of a completely different race for government.
"Then why don't the humans vote for other humans."
"Because then maybe the wrong person from that other race may come to power."
it's a self-perpetuating system.
As a consequence of that, most people cannot vote for what they want. Most people vote because they don't want the OTHER party in place, or they think "well, it's better than the other party".

As nice as that sounds, you have no way of proving it. Again, there are plenty of people that vote Republican or Democrat because they want to vote that way.

I've admitted that the self-perpetuating dismissal of third parties is a fault of the system, but I don't think you can ever understand exactly how Right Wing the Reform Party was with Pat Buchannan at the helm. It was Right Wing by American standards. THat doesn't mean anything to me, but considering your opinion on our centrist society, I'm sure it means something to you.

This is completely different, because in Canada, the people had a choice to vote for another party, and that choice would've mattered. Meaning that a majority of the people really want that party to have a majority, as opposed to the USA, where a majority of the people simply don't see a a better choice. There's a huge difference, and I think that the fact that you're living in the USA is blinding you from this difference.

No, I think the fact that you don't live in the USA is blinding you from my point. That a majority of Canadians want to vote Liberal is PRECISELY the problem. Maybe you have to live in America or Canada to really notice the difference. Again, I'm thinking this is more of a cultural thing. =/

Let me tell you a small anecdote: when I was in the governmental seat of the Netherlands for a historic tour, I joined up with the English tour, because the Dutch tour was going too start an hour later. There were several Americans present, and when we got to the current parliament hall, the tour guide started explaining our system of government. The Americans all thought it was stupid and didn't actually get it. First you get questions like, "who's your man in the government", based on the fact that each senator has his own state, which simply doesn't happen here. There were all sorts of questions that seem really silly, but this was purely due to the fact that the Americans simply did not get it.

Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I'm a motherfucking knuckle-dragger? Its getting really hard not to take this personally. I understand what you're telling me, what you don't understand is the thought that a majority isn't always right. "You mean, a majority doesn't rule all the time? That's stupid, who's your Prime Minister?"

Again: you're wrong. The other 45% does have a vote, namely the same vote as the 55%. They chose for a different party or a different guy, and that(those) guy or party just didn't have as much votes as the libertarians. That's the entire principle of democracy.

I don't think you understand the implication of a majority government.

Perhaps a fictional example would help.

Seats in Parliament: 300

Boot Party = 175 seats
Shoe Party = 50 seats
Loafer Party = 25 seats
High Heels = 25 seats
Sandal Party = 15 seats
Brown Bags = 10 seats

Boot legislation = passed
Shoe legislation = shit
Loafer legislation = shit
High Heel legislation = shit
Sandal legislation = shit
Brown Bag legislation = shit

Political Alliance:

Boot Party = 175 seats
Casual Footwear = 125 seats

Boot legislation = passed
Casual Footwear legislation = poopy

And you keep trying to defend this, and won't accept the simple fact that having an influence through influencing the policies of OTHER parties isn't nearly as good as actually having governmental offices.

Not for the parties it isn't. But it keeps radicals from taking the reigns of the government. Again, cultural differences.

And this is good, why exactly? If I choose a party to vote for, I choose it because I know it will vote how I want it to vote. The differences with how I would vote would be minimal. But in the two-party system you have, people can vote for their senator, congressman or president, and have the president not vote according to their own wishes. That is bad, period!
See, if you compare two different things: having two parties that don't vote according to their voters' wishes, or having a lot of parties that DO vote according to their voters' wishes (which, by the way, isn't guaranteed either, since the parties are mainly there for ease of election), the second one is clearly superior to the first one.

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you just won't get it. Why should I even bother?

Which is bad. If you had the state rule itself and then have the general nationwide representative election you would have nation officals elected according to the voters' wishes, and you would have state officials to deal with the local concerns and make sure that everything goes smoothly there.

National Policies affect the States, however. Let's say, for instance, purely hypothetical, that Texas wants to build a pipeline from its oilfields that goes through my homestate, of Oklahoma. The end result is lower oil prices for everybody, everybody wins, right? Well I don't win, and neither does my state, because that pipeline is a major environmental hazard, and would have to cut through highways and towns. How am I represented when my party's representatives vote for the pipeline in accordance to the party majority?

Nope, but it is enough to pass any laws that don't offend the constitution, which is, by the way, the principle of the constitution.

Again, representatives represent their state, not their party. I'm very bad at conveying this idea, so I hope you're starting to get it. Just because a majority of Democrats like Lobster Tax doesn't mean that the people of Maine do (again, purely hypothetical).

Haha! A majority doesn't want to vote for them, but a minority does. And by refusing to give that minority any practical influence, you're NOT GIVING THEM A VOTE.

The Bullmoose Party influenced American politics more by not winning elections than they would have if they won 5 seats in the House. You underestimate the influence of 3rd Parties in our national politics.

The major parties have to make concessions to the third parties in order to perpetuate themselves.

Note the 2000 elections. Note the amount of votes for the 3rd party candidate. Note how no 3rd party has any influence whatsoever.

This is of course, disregarding my 92 election example, where Ross Perot and the Reform Party cost H.W. Bush the election.

The Green Party also made a significant showing in the last election. Enough for people to take them seriously. Government websites list three parties now. Republican, Democrat, and Green.

There almost never is a majority, so everyone will have to deliberate to get majority votes.

ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER. Just like there is almost never a president voted into office who didn't receive the most popular votes.

If you can't admit the flaws in your own system, why are you debunking mine?

If there is a majority, this majority shows exactly what the people want. Done and done, no more problems. A majority wants that, so it's all good. The reason why there is a consitution is to kerb the wills of people who want to destroy the system and the basis of western "culture", like the equality of everyone.
Note that Hitler got to absolute power not through a majority support, he only had 33% of the votes, but through scheming.

No, a majority isn't always good. I don't see how you fail to see this. A majority is more than a half of the whole, how is leaving a significant proportion of the population unrepresented a good thing?

A majority of Germans seemed more than willing to turn a blind eye to the Holocaust and not think about it. Now that they were forced to accept it, they're trying their damndest to forget about it. Is that right?

As well as that, you assume that there can be no majority in a two-party system.

No, there is always the danger of a majority. But this nation is so diversified that if a party gained a significant majority, it would splinter. Its happened before, and it will happen again. The two party system works best for us, because that's just how we are. Maybe things in The Netherlands are different from things in Canada, eh?

This is very much true. However, no-one actually voted for it, and it's probable that most people turned a blind eye and didn't want to know about i. And there wasn't a majority support for Hitler when he got elected either. Hitler's extermination of the Jews was solely his decision, not the people's decision nor was it ever backed, directly or indirectly, by a majority vote of the people.

But you still understand my position that a majority isn't always right.

YOu know what I mean.

Heh. =P

Eh-bleh? Eh-BLEH???
The entire PRINCIPLE of the multi-party system, as I've been TRYING to explain, is to give EVERYONE their representation. And now you're saying that this doesn't happen in a multi-aprty system, and happens better in a two-party system?

Ok, perhaps liability was a poor choice of words. The prospect of a Majority Government in a Democratic system is an ever present danger, however. You can't deny this.

Right, so, again, where4 are the socialists, greens, libertarians, communists, social-democrats, fascists, muslims, hindus, buddhists, blacks, hicks, hispanics, immigrants...

Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Communist =P, Democrat, don't exist, Democrat or Republican, Democrat or Republican, Democrat or Republican, Democrat (unfortunately, so close-minded), don't vote, not sure, aren't citizens... yet.

You see, the major parties encompass several ideologies and agendas. Saying that they don't have a vote is a fallacy, as at least some of what they believe in gains representation.

Ever heard of gay Republicans? They do exist.

I noticed a lot of races and ethnicities in there. We don't play that in America. Melting pot, yo.

And in a multi-party system you would probably have found a party you would agree with, as opposed to finding a party you don't want because you don'ttotally agree with them.
Interestingly, you're basically proving my point with that bit of text.

Actually, I have found a party I agree with: The Libertarian Party.

And in a good representative democracy, you would not have this problem.
People would still remain naturally centrists, would still be able to vote centre, but the extremists would also vote extreme and would know that their votes counted and did something.

Extremists can vote and do something. I've explained this several times already, but you don't seem to understand political influence.

Federation, not republic nor democracy.
See, you think I don't understand that. I do. But that doesn't change a thing about the fact that the system sucks. "But we're a republic, not a democracy". Uh-huh. And Czaric Russia was an Empire, not a democracy. That doesn't mean that the system didn't suck huge donkey balls.

If our system sucked huge donkey balls then why has it remained relatively intact for over 200 years? Maybe its because people want it that way.

Wrong. It has the effect of having representatives for everyone(or at the very least for the larger majorities) and having those representatives vote on nationwide issues. It's not logical to have locally elected people vote on an issue that concerns much more than just the locals.

Sure it is. I explained it a few quotes ago.

For example, if there were local elections in 10 provinces, with each province having one seat in parliament, you could have someone win everywhere by 51-49% except in one province, where the other person wins by a margin of 95-5%. This means that the party in power would have 9 seats but no nationwide majority, and the other man would have 1 seat and nationwide majority support. That happens, and that is exactly why local elections should concern localities only and nationwide election nationwide concerns only.

Nice strawman. But it ain't gonna work.

By having local elections in Bavaria and having those locally elected people preside over local events only.
it's illogical to have a majority of Bavaria vote on nationwide issues, just as it's illogical for a nationwide government to vote on local Bavarian concerns.

If nationwide decisions are going to affect Bavaria, they should have the right to vote on said issue.

PS: Those things I did not comment on, I agreed with, or you said you agreed with them. (Two or three things). I didn't comment on them for your sake, since you didn't want critical mass.

Such a tease. =P


I have understood something though, and I am making a major concession for you. The Two Party System would suck in any nation but America.

As for local representation in National affairs. The American Revolution was set into motion by the most insignificant of taxes because the colonists lacked representation in Parliament. No Taxation Without Representation, No Texas Oil Pipeline Without Representation.

 

[Sander]

I uh, I knew what a multi-party system was. You see, I used Canada as an example of what can go wrong in a multi-party system. Obviously, when a party doesn't have a majority of seats, it'll have to make concessions to the other parties in order to pass legislation.

Yep.

Bush was elected without the most popular votes. Gore had the most popular votes.

Clinton, on the other hand, had the most popular votes, but not a majority. Its easy to get that confused, I just had to make sure that majority was more than half myself.

Ehe. Annoying. Mkay.

I do agree that then the popular vote vs. the real vote often doesn't change much, but the amount by which it changes is, in itself, intolerable. Furthermore, as I've said further below, having localities judge nationwide issues is not logical.

Because a federation can't work unless the States are willing to compromise.

Rhode Island was concerned that it would be under-represented in the Federal government, as were other small states. So Congress was divided into two parts: The House, and The Senate. In the House of Representatives, the amount of representatives a state can send is determined by its population. The more people in the state, the more representatives. The smallest states, though, can still send 2 representatives regardless of population. In the Senate, every state has two senators. In making this compromise, they insured that large states like Virginia and Pennsylvania would have the representation they deserved, without overpowering smaller states like Rhode Island.

Senators and Congressmen are elected by the people in the state.

In order to see how that's a good thing, you can refer back to my previous statement where I said that this nation provides as much voice in government as possible. California and Texas may have loud voices, but Rhode Island and Delaware aren't silenced.

The system of localities electing nationwide officials is, indeed, not bad for a federation, and as long as the USA really remains a real federation, this doesn't need to change. Annoyingly, the boundaries of state and nation laws are fading.

I'd like to know how, exactly. If you wouldn't mind indulging me.

Well, the main difference lies in the electoral. We have a multi-party nationwide representative vote, and, as I've been trying to explain, this is more democratic than a localities vote (since we're not a federation, but I shouldn't be compring that to the USA, then), and it's more democratic because of the multi-party system. As I've said over and over again, I can vote for people with whom I really agree.

That's not true. Do you think the Democrats would have advocated socialist programs if left wing parties didn't threaten to take their votes?

*sigh* AGain: they have no influence. And you know why? Because unnoticeable and, more importantly, UNOFFICIAL influence does not count.
I don't think you're really getting the importance of having official influence. Having official real influence is much more important because it allows you the person with the opinion to carry out that opiion, instead of having it mitigated and changed by some central party that does get a lot of votes. "Yeah but...the democrats take a little socialism-" No, they don't. They remain as centrist as possible, and all the socialists don't vote or vote for the Democrats because they don't want the Republicans.
I believe that the amount of people voting in the USA is about 50%. Here it's 80%. Ever wonder why?

No shit? Chirac is a Right-Winger in France, as I understand it.

What the hell does that have to do with it.

The social and economic dispositions of this nation have more to do with its SOCIETY than the system it has in place. This country is a Christian nation, and as much as I'm sure a lot of you Europeans would like to think that makes us unenlightened, it simply isn't true. I've known men of God that are more intelligent and open-minded than any anarchist or socialist I've met.


I'm beginning to think your detestment of our political system has more to do with cultural differences than objective reasoning.

Goddamnit, I can't stand that. Really, I can't. YOu bring up something that has absolutely nothing to do with the point, is flame-bait and trolling as well. Please, shut up and don't insult me anymore, okay? I like to consider myself an intelligent person, I'm not an atheist, nor am I a religious man. I don't believe that religious men are somehow dumber and I never ever gave even the slightest hint that I thought so, so please, shut the fuck up and respond to my arguments instead, mkay?

As nice as that sounds, you have no way of proving it. Again, there are plenty of people that vote Republican or Democrat because they want to vote that way.

No, I don't. Experience tells me this, and do you know why? Because no man ever thinks the same things as another man. There are always small differences. On this forum alone I've encountered about a dozen people who said "I'm not voting because both parties suck" both on Kerry v. Bush and on general elections as well. I've also met people who didn't vote for the libertarians or greens because that might give the Republicans a lead, so instead they vote for the Democrats.
You have no evidence of the contrary, and since the case in every single country that does have a multi-party system is that there are multiple parties that make a difference and that are voted for, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that this wouldn't be the case in the USA.

I've admitted that the self-perpetuating dismissal of third parties is a fault of the system, but I don't think you can ever understand exactly how Right Wing the Reform Party was with Pat Buchannan at the helm. It was Right Wing by American standards. THat doesn't mean anything to me, but considering your opinion on our centrist society, I'm sure it means something to you.

I don't think that you understand that I have no problem with that. If it's really right-wing, and people want right wing, they'll vote for it. If they don't, they won't vote for it. If you don't like that, go move to a dictatorship or an oligarchy, and don't support a Republican or Democratic system.

No, I think the fact that you don't live in the USA is blinding you from my point. That a majority of Canadians want to vote Liberal is PRECISELY the problem. Maybe you have to live in America or Canada to really notice the difference. Again, I'm thinking this is more of a cultural thing. =/

A) This would not be different in a two-party system, and there would be no reason for the libertarians to adjust their views in accordance with extremer parties to attract more voters either.
B) What's wrong with democracy at work? A majority of the people want libertarian policies? So be it, if a majority of the people here wanted policies I don't agree with (which they do, at the moment) I may think they're all dumb assholes, but I don't go about scolding at the system, which is fine but can use some re-tuning as well, I go about trying to change people's minds about the policies.

Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I'm a motherfucking knuckle-dragger? Its getting really hard not to take this personally. I understand what you're telling me, what you don't understand is the thought that a majority isn't always right. "You mean, a majority doesn't rule all the time? That's stupid, who's your Prime Minister?"

No, you're right, a majority isn't right. But, as many men have already said, majority rules is the best thing we have.
Explain this to me: in a multi-party system concessions will have to be made, unless there is a clear majority in favor of one party, in which case there are no concessions and indeed, some people may be heavily fucked. But in those cases there is still the constiution to at least grant people basic human rights (which is why, in my opinioin, a constitution should be absolutely unchangeable).
When we compare that to a two-party system, we have no necessary deliberations and concessions whatsoever (leading to less centrist policies) and if there is a party who has a clear favor of the people without having to adjust their policies for extremists, they won't do it!
Okay, let's look at the USA. In 2000 Bush got elected on the "conservatism with compassion" ticket. Yay. Now, tell me, how much did that get pushed through? Answer: not. The right-wing christian-fundamentalists basically hold a lot of power in the Republican power, and interestingly, a lot of people don't like it, including CCR. Yet they still vote for it because there is nothing better, and they don't want those damned libertarian Kerry-types in office.

I don't think you understand the implication of a majority government.

Perhaps a fictional example would help.
<example snip>

I don't think you understand the fact that I don't have a problem with that. It's the principle of democracy, live with it or go propogate a non-democratic system.

Not for the parties it isn't. But it keeps radicals from taking the reigns of the government. Again, cultural differences.

Get this: who is considered a radical and who isn't shifts with the opinions of the majority of the people. A century ago someone supporting woman's equality would've been considered a radical, now it's the other way around. In other words, as soon as a radical gets a majority (or large minority) support, he won't be a radical, but a centrist.

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you just won't get it. Why should I even bother?

Uh-huh. How do you think I feel? Nice response, by the way. Real to the point. I'm wholly convinced now.

National Policies affect the States, however. Let's say, for instance, purely hypothetical, that Texas wants to build a pipeline from its oilfields that goes through my homestate, of Oklahoma. The end result is lower oil prices for everybody, everybody wins, right? Well I don't win, and neither does my state, because that pipeline is a major environmental hazard, and would have to cut through highways and towns.
How am I represented when my party's representatives vote for the pipeline in accordance to the party majority?

Which is why there are multiple parties, and yo can always find one you agree with for such a large part that the small bit that you don't agree with is negligably small.

Furthermore, in these cases there should be a clear boundary between state and local concerns. This is a state concern that deeply affects local concerns, so if the localities cannot agree with it, they'll have to find another way.

Again, representatives represent their state, not their party. I'm very bad at conveying this idea, so I hope you're starting to get it. Just because a majority of Democrats like Lobster Tax doesn't mean that the people of Maine do (again, purely hypothetical).

Yes, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't in a multi-party system mean that the people of Maine aren't represented, it would mean that the people of Maine would've voted for the party that does not want a lobster-tax and would've been represented like that.
It's interesting that this is starting to sound a lot like that American I was talking about earlier.

The Bullmoose Party influenced American politics more by not winning elections than they would have if they won 5 seats in the House. You underestimate the influence of 3rd Parties in our national politics.

The major parties have to make concessions to the third parties in order to perpetuate themselves.

That's the case with three parties, but not with multi-party system. See, I don't know exactly what the Bullmoose party did, but one of the two major parties could easily ignore it while the other had to adjust its policies accordingly. If they had had 5 seats in the house, then one of the two parties (or in a freak accident, both of the two parties) would've had to appease the Bull Moose party to get them to vote for their issue and get a majority. In a multi-party system the effect is even greater because every party has to do this, unless there is a clear majority, in which case democracy is at work.

This is of course, disregarding my 92 election example, where Ross Perot and the Reform Party cost H.W. Bush the election.

The Green Party also made a significant showing in the last election. Enough for people to take them seriously. Government websites list three parties now. Republican, Democrat, and Green.

Yet they have no real, official influence. See, there is a big difference between maybe costing someone the election and having that someone adjust his policies and simply joining for the election to win something. In one case you're changing someone else's policies, in the other you are carrying out your own policies.

ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER ALMOST NEVER. Just like there is almost never a president voted into office who didn't receive the most popular votes.

If you can't admit the flaws in your own system, why are you debunking mine?

Because I don't think it's a flaw. I think the fact that the majority isn't always right is a major flaw, and I've though that for a long time, but I've also come to believe that majority rules is basically the best practical thing we have (Socialist Anarchism would be better, but isn't practical or realistic).

No, a majority isn't always good. I don't see how you fail to see this. A majority is more than a half of the whole, how is leaving a significant proportion of the population unrepresented a good thing?

They are not unrepresented. They could, theoretically and in Canada, not have any or extremely little influence, but what you don't seem to get is that if there already is such a majority for one party, that one party will not be influenced by third parties in a two-party system like the USA, since it can easily survive without doing so. There would be no change when going to a two-party system, really.

A majority of Germans seemed more than willing to turn a blind eye to the Holocaust and not think about it. Now that they were forced to accept it, they're trying their damndest to forget about it. Is that right?

Actually, it isn't. They're not trying to forget it, and I think the Germans are, along with the Israelis, the most conscious people of what happened during World War 2. It is a huge black stain on their history, and they are trying their damndest NOT to forget it.
The fact that most were willing to turn a blind is very very bad, but there are mitigitating circumstances. For one, most Jews didn't even know. For two, Hitler made it really really easy to believe that the Jews were just being sent away to the Ostland. For three, Hitler had also been indoctrinating the youth, and interestingly, these youths frequently turned in their parents to the police. This made for a very fear-ridden society where no-one, not even the closest people to you, could be trusted, and you couldn't utter a word about any anti-nazi thing without fearing for your life.
Of course, this doesn't change a thing about the fact that majority rule is far from perfect.

No, there is always the danger of a majority. But this nation is so diversified that if a party gained a significant majority, it would splinter. Its happened before, and it will happen again. The two party system works best for us, because that's just how we are. Maybe things in The Netherlands are different from things in Canada, eh?

Obviously. But there is one thing you should really try to realise: if there were a two-party system in Canada, the libertarians would still have a clear majority and would not have to worry about those third parties. Once you really grasp this, the fact that I think that a two-party system really isn't preferable to a multi-party system should (I think) become more logical (or less illogical) for you.

But you still understand my position that a majority isn't always right.

Of course.

Ok, perhaps liability was a poor choice of words. The prospect of a Majority Government in a Democratic system is an ever present danger, however. You can't deny this.

Nope. And I won't, but I don't see it as a problem. For one, there's a consitution (which really should be unchangeable, damnit!). For two, chances of that happening are rather slim. For three, the majority rules is still the best governmental principle we have.

Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Communist =P, Democrat, don't exist, Democrat or Republican, Democrat or Republican, Democrat or Republican, Democrat (unfortunately, so close-minded), don't vote, not sure, aren't citizens... yet.

You see, the major parties encompass several ideologies and agendas. Saying that they don't have a vote is a fallacy, as at least some of what they believe in gains representation.

Ever heard of gay Republicans? They do exist.

I noticed a lot of races and ethnicities in there. We don't play that in America. Melting pot, yo.

Actually, neither do we. We have some vague Islamic party which was carried over from Belgium (damn those Belgians), but that doesn't even have a seat in parliament. That party is the closest we get to any ethnically linked party. *shrugs*
That said, my point was that they don't get representation, but that only a very small part of their ideology gets representation. For instance, the major parties in the Netherlands are:
Christian Centre/Right, Libertarian right, Labour (social-democrat), Socialist(more extreme version of social-democrat) and a whole slew of smaller parties (left libertarian, left christian, right christian, right-wing, greens, animals party, party for partying (ehehe. gotta love jokes like that) and several others.) The size of these parties, and the types of parties and the amount of parties are constantly fluctuating.
Everyone really is represented, or constitutes such a small minority (less than 1/150th of the population going to the voting booths) that they just don't get a seat in parliament. In a two-party system most of those ideologies would be gone (not to mention the fact that the three major parties are of about the same size), or they would be incorporated into one of the two major parties. This really doesn't work right.

Actually, I have found a party I agree with: The Libertarian Party.

No, you found a party you partially agree with, but won't vote for because you don't want them in government because you don't agree with their extremism. Big, very big, difference.

Extremists can vote and do something. I've explained this several times already, but you don't seem to understand political influence.

I do, I fully understand the fact that the major parties' policies are influenced by the third parties and more significantly than I had first imagined. This does not mean, however, that I think that that is somehow better than having seats in a parliament, congress or whatever.

If our system sucked huge donkey balls then why has it remained relatively intact for over 200 years? Maybe its because people want it that way.

Dude, the Czaric system remained intact for several centuries. The monarchies of Europe for half a millenium or even more in some cases. Stability has nothing to do with how good it is, just with how long it can stay in power.

Nice strawman. But it ain't gonna work.

Strawman? YOu did exactly the same thing with the shoes example, you made up a fictional vote to show how the system is flawed. Mine was exaggerated, so was yours. Mine has happened, so has yours. YOurs has happened in Canada, mine has happened with Bush.

If nationwide decisions are going to affect Bavaria, they should have the right to vote on said issue.

Very much so. Which is why the Bavarian citizens have a vote in the nationwide elections. And that is also why there should be a clear division line between local and nationwide governments.

Of course, you do realise that we can't just keep saying "they're affected, we need their permission as well" because that would mean that eventually if one man was negatively affected by it and he doesn't want it then the government can't go through with it. There are arbitrary lines where local is too local to matter for a nationwide concern. This is just the same in the USA, because if one man doesn't like to have a pipeline next to his house (and not on his ground) he can't do jack shit about it if the rest of the state doesn't give a shit.

I have understood something though, and I am making a major concession for you. The Two Party System would suck in any nation but America.

I don't know if that's how you meant it to sound, but it sounds as if you're saying "I'm making a concession, you should too."
I'm happy that you're seeing it my way, but I'm not going to say "I make a concession" just because you did. I hope (and think) you didn't expect me to...

As for local representation in National affairs. The American Revolution was set into motion by the most insignificant of taxes because the colonists lacked representation in Parliament. No Taxation Without Representation, No Texas Oil Pipeline Without Representation.

See above.

EDIT: Fixed quotation marks.

 

[Bradylama]

I'm awful tired and about to go to sleep, so I can't cover everything just yet, but:

I don't know if that's how you meant it to sound, but it sounds as if you're saying "I'm making a concession, you should too."
I'm happy that you're seeing it my way, but I'm not going to say "I make a concession" just because you did. I hope (and think) you didn't expect me to...

That's not how I thought it would come out. I'm just saying that you've made several good points that I can't completely refute, and that my arguments are based on an ideological preference instead of a practical one.

 

[Sander]

That's not how I thought it would come out. I'm just saying that you've made several good points that I can't completely refute, and that my arguments are based on an ideological preference instead of a practical one.

Okay. Goodie.
PS: Reply!

PPS: This has got to be the most idiotic thing in the article that CCR posted to start this thread:

In den sechziger Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts, als[...]allein der Gedanke an eine Erektion dazu führte, dass sie sich einstellte