LogFAQs > #886122374

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The two party system in the US is really bad for the democracy,
ThyCorndog 09/06/17 10:50:40 AM #29:	Advokaiser posted... ThyCorndog posted... Advokaiser posted... I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win). And in a 2 party system it would've come down to the 2 evils without the rest even having a shot What's your point The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote than having ten options where you may have no idea what you can deal with (i.e. Building a wall vs. not building a wall sounds much simpler). making it simpler and coming down to binary solutions isn't a good thing. life and its issues aren't simple. dumbing down politics doesn't fix anything --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:886122374] in The two pa... [t:75746751]...</cite> <quote><cite>Advokaiser posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Advokaiser posted...</cite> <quote>I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win).</quote> And in a 2 party system it would've come down to the 2 evils without the rest even having a shot What's your point</quote> The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote than having ten options where you may have no idea what you can deal with (i.e. Building a wall vs. not building a wall sounds much simpler).</quote> making it simpler and coming down to binary solutions isn't a good thing. life and its issues aren't simple. dumbing down politics doesn't fix anything --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1