A third major political party?

[Rob Roy]

you advocated that it is polite and reasonable to hang racial segregation signs

It is polite and reasonable to notice others of how you intend to use your property. What you intend to do, however, may not be polite.

For instance if you had an exceptionally well endowed german shepherd with a penchant for anally raping people, wouldn't it be polite to post a "beware of dog" sign?

I'm not saying you do have a dog like that, or that his relationship with you could really be termed rape, as it might be consensual.

 

[Rob Roy]

Netherlands, right?

Nice country. Good economy. People seem to be pretty happy. So Parliamentary system looks good

Greece. Kind of fucked up right now. So Parliamentary system doesn't look so good.

US isn't in a good place right now, so our strange system looks bad.

I'm saying our problems aren't because of the Senate. I'm saying our problems are the same that other countries have had in past times. We have to work through it like they did.

About 10 years maybe 15 is when the population shifts from single race dominated to multi-race. California is already there. Yeah, I'm optimistic, CA is doing pretty good.. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

One possibility in 10 -15 years (or less) is the fragmentation of the empire both abroad and domestically. Meaning, multiple lesser plantation states, similar to other federation breakups in the past. USSR, etc.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

it's almost as if The United States isn't a democracy.

we're a federal republic. in a democracy, each person's vote is counted, and the majority wins, every time...that is NOT the case in the United States...

 

[UncleBuck]

It is polite and reasonable to notice others of how you intend to use your property. What you intend to do, however, may not be polite.

For instance if you had an exceptionally well endowed german shepherd with a penchant for anally raping people, wouldn't it be polite to post a "beware of dog" sign?

I'm not saying you do have a dog like that, or that his relationship with you could really be termed rape, as it might be consensual.

It is neither polite nor reasonable to hang racial segregation signs

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Yes, I do, excellent idea.

That would require in what we in multiparty countries call the formation process, where coalitions are formed. If no party reaches a majority, they need to form a coalition with another. That’s effectively what it means if the vote goes to the house. The candidate of the largest party in the coalition becomes potus.

For an imaginary example... Hillary needs Bernie’s support to get a majority to beat Trump. Hillary thus has to make a deal with Bernie, give him a top position in her cabinet, or, most logically elsewhere, make him VP. Such a deal involves all sides make compromises, which avoids extremes and exposes people who merely want power. It allows people to focus on policy instead of the most popular puppet.

Important to learn from history, but one bad example doesn’t make a trend. Ideally you’d have both an extra right and an extra left party. Giving Trump voters / republicans more options than the gop, and non-voters more options than the dems and gop, would only help reduce Trump and his supporters’ influence.

The division fueled by the 2-party system is by itself more than enough reason to get rid of it like the plague. All this left vs right, liberal vs conservative, capitalism vs socialism, even racist vs no racist, all dumbed down to often misunderstood labels that make any constructive dialogue impossible. It makes everything so ridiculously and hopelessly binary and doesn’t just stop at a discussion about politics. “America, land of extremes”

The POTUS is supposed to be merely an executive branch. The senate is far more important yet the main attention always goes to the popularity contest of the next great leader. Yet the senate is as least as messed up when it comes to dividing the power. Less than 600,000 people in Wyoming get 2 senators, and California with 40mil gets 2 as well... With a more realistic representation of the population in congress, Trump would have been impeached already.

yeah, but the thing is, we pick our leaders by popularity contest...a profoundly stupid way, but it's the one we picked....
no thought to making sure the people making the choice have any idea what they're choosing, or why. no thought to actual policy....most people don't have a clue what the politicians they choose stand for, beyond the one issue that's important to them....their candidate may be against everything else they hold dear, but support their one key issue, so they look no further, and vote for the entirely otherwise wrong candidate, based on their ignorance.
some people don't even bother to enlighten themselves that much, they listen to talk show hosts, tv talking heads, and blindly do as they are told, and don't even know why. i've long said that people should not just have a "right" to vote...you ought to have to earn that right, you ought to have at least a fundamental understanding of the issues, or you don't get to have an opinion...a simple current issues "test"...to prove you aren't a fucking idiot, whose opinion should not count for a goddamn thing

 

[Jimdamick]

Our representatives are all elected democratically

Except when some archaic bullshit like the Electoral College takes precedent over actual vote count, which has happened twice in my lifetime, the 1st being Gore, which brought us Bush (nice choice), and then Trump (an even nicer choice).
What was democratic about that?

 

[Rob Roy]

Fairy tale.

Until such time as the actual voters can be objective election cycle to election cycle.

But that's not going to happen because at least 40% of the electorate is stupid at all times.

And the people want government to do something for them. Some want a free ride, some want to pay no taxes, some want judges to restrict free choice, some want to pretend some god is actually in charge of what happens and that we'll always have clean air and fresh water and an endless food supply.

Gone are the days of, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'

Go ask 12 different people what's wrong with the political system and you'll get 12 different answers. 4 will be stupid, 3 will be unrealistic, 2 will be criminal, 2 will be wishful thinking and 1 will say WTF?

It's not like a country of 350 million people, all of whom have IQs between 125 and 140.

Where are these multiparty countries that are having great success? Name them.

Seems to me they all seem to be having difficulties across the oceans. They can't even resolve their economic ideas in Europe. Russia and Saudi Arabia aren't above killing people in their way, China's not much better and North Korea keeps their people in darkness.

And then you get to the middle east religious wars.

Let congress pick the leaders instead of the voting public? They can't even agree on what a fucking crime is.

You just made a good argument for Panarchy.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Except when some archaic bullshit like the Electoral College takes precedent over actual vote count, which has happened twice in my lifetime, the 1st being Gore, which brought us Bush (nice choice), and then Trump (an even nicer choice).
What was democratic about that?

not a fucking thing...which is why i maintain that we're a federal republic, and NOT a democracy...
at a state level, elections are fairly democratic, although practices like gerrymandering make the whole process suspect...
at a national level, we're not a democracy at all....there are no "Electors" chosen in a democracy, the entire population are Electors...