Guliani vs. Hillary

Who do you prefer?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 5 83.3%

  • Rudolph Guliani

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Total voters
    6
I understand completly.

Now that I have calmed myself slightly, I can reflect on my previous rage induced posting. No, I won't be voiting for either of them. If Paul isn't on the ballot then LP it is.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I understand completly.

Now that I have calmed myself slightly, I can reflect on my previous rage induced posting. No, I won't be voiting for either of them. If Paul isn't on the ballot then LP it is.
Click to expand...

It's just a popularity thing, Capt.

Our system just discourages third parties to an extreme extent. Tell an Demopublican about how you believe it's unfair and they'll glare at you and repeat this phrase mechanically "It's a two party system! If people liked you they'd vote for you and you'd get as many seats in congress as you deserved!". Which isn't true.

If we had proportional representation, you'd get at least a voice in congress, however, in terms of actual power, having 8% of the seats in congress means just as much as having 0% of them.
 
Watermark said:
It's just a popularity thing, Capt.

Our system just discourages third parties to an extreme extent. Tell an Demopublican about how you believe it's unfair and they'll glare at you and repeat this phrase mechanically "It's a two party system! If people liked you they'd vote for you and you'd get as many seats in congress as you deserved!". Which isn't true.

If we had proportional representation, you'd get at least a voice in congress, however, in terms of actual power, having 8% of the seats in congress means just as much as having 0% of them.
Click to expand...
That would depend with whom you caucused.
 
OK, if you held the balance of power, you'd be pretty powerful. But in a our system a party doesn't necessarily need a majority to govern effectively. Since party discipline is lax, the biggest party could just rely on rebellious votes from other parties to get their agenda passed. I'm not sure anyone would ever be willing to work with a party like the Libertarians.
 
We also have the committee system, though. And you don't get assigned a seat in a committee if one of the big two parties doesn't agree with you, which makes you much less powerful than any other member of the house. IMHO, parties shouldn't be able to decide not to seat a member in any of the committees, as it thereby effectively nullifies the voting power of the people who elected that person.

So yes, now that I think about it, you would be forced to caucus with either the Democrats or Republicans under our rules, even if the Democrats and Republicans were smaller than another party, because the house rules are specifically written for those two parties.
 
Watermark said:
We also have the committee system, though. And you don't get assigned a seat in a committee if one of the big two parties doesn't agree with you, which makes you much less powerful than any other member of the house. IMHO, parties shouldn't be able to decide not to seat a member in any of the committees, as it thereby effectively nullifies the voting power of the people who elected that person.

So yes, now that I think about it, you would be forced to caucus with either the Democrats or Republicans under our rules, even if the Democrats and Republicans were smaller than another party, because the house rules are specifically written for those two parties.
Click to expand...



It's all a sham, wm. Maybe for starters, they should be obligated to do what they promise to do on the campaign trail . The people have no say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top