Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Democracy won’t work because most people voting are uninformed. Heck, a lot of voters are barely literate.
Please substantiate both of these.
Making voting a “right” rather than a privilege was a mistake
This is the base that democracy starts from. You have a right to vote no matter how you form your opinion. Having people have to pass some sort of test to vote invites bias in whatever test that is (not very difficult to sneak idealogical bents into test material, essentially making only one side's vote eligible). Come on now.
Created:
-->
@Bones
If it was not in the interest of humans to procreate, no they would likely not have developed sex and died off.
Sexual reproduction predates human existence by a very, very, very long time. We didn't 'develop' sex.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am simply saying that the rise in homosexuality is not a genetic issue. It is a sign of God's judgment,
So God's judging America and making it more gay? Why? Isn't this all his doing anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
93% of the 10,000 blacks murdered are killed annually by Thugs. 2% are killed by cops. I think we can let the police issue take a back seat for a bit.
Sounds like someone somewhere has a concrete definition of "thugs" as a demographic...can you post the definition you're using of "thugs" for the purposes of this 'respectful' conversation you'd like to have? How are thugs identified so definitively that we can have statistics on them?
Created:
You also appear to be operating on a mainly binary definition of sexuality, where you're either gay or straight, like a light switch, that's really not how a lot of people operate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you define what thug culture is, and why it's a problem, as well as the scale of the issue? Kind of important for having a discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll just reiterate this sentiment of mine:“Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.”
Yeah, I read it, I'm not sure it's anything to respond to, short of saying it sounds like a soft complaint that the shoe's now on the other foot, but I don't want to draw a hard conclusion based on whatever this is. If those vocal and sensitive elements represent the majority view, just represent it louder than most, would your view be "I'll abide by these new unwritten rules?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yikes… you actually would *consider* firing someone over a widely held national policy opinion?
Yes, if I thought it would or could negatively impact my business, I'd certainly consider it. That's capitalism, no? I'm within my rights, as are they. We're private citizens.
And you left out THE most important point in my response:“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”But I see now that you are AOK with that ever expanding strike zone. It “is PROGRESS,” as you said…
I don't think I left it out. And who gets to define bigotry? Isn't the answer society? What's your idea for progressing towards the more perfect union laid out in the Constitution if it isn't allowing society at large to decide what's tolerable versus what isn't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ok, but that's not first amendment concerns. That's shifting in culture tolerance, which is not and should not be subject to legislation.
For example, is it bigoted to opine that you want better border security, and if so, should you get fired for that?
Depends on the argument. If the argument is really about national security (i.e. a group of organized terrorists or a drug cartel crossing the border with impugnity), and that's the argument you make, it's different than the fig leaf that this issue often is, where pundits say things like "THEY are coming to replace US." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration, the promise that makes this country the best one on earth even if it isn't perfect, and it's about oligarchy. The bottom line is if your political ideas don't appeal to the majority of voters, the problem isn't the voters, it's your ideas, in a democracy (and again, that's not me saying we have democracy perfected by any means). And I'm not accusing you of one or the other, but the fact that people see through those pseudo-intellectual fronts more now than in years past is PROGRESS.
Eventually, people will be afraid to talk openly about anything, and they will simply cluster together in like-minded groups and echo chambers, where tribalism, division and de facto segregation will markedly increase— the exact opposite of what these cultural limitations on speech are trying to achieve!
So...racists will be afraid to be racists openly? Yeah, I'm willing to allow that. Sorry, the solution is to quit being a racist if you don't want to be ostracized. People being afraid to talk openly is also not a government issue, that's a cowardice issue. If you believe in your principles, stand up and be proud to announce them, and damn the torpedoes, right?
However, staff at MIT realized that he once opined against affirmative action, so they cancelled his appearance. Politicization of science, anyone?
No one has a constitutional right to speak at MIT. I disagree that it's politicization of science. It's politicization of who speaks at their institution. Politicization of science is, in my view, the correlation between voting trends and adherence to covid science, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That sounds to me more like keeping the order of the hearing, not like Big Brother coming down on a dissenting opinion, but without something to look at myself, it's hard to say for sure. If she felt her civil liberties were violated, she has plenty of remedies to pursue it. Order in these public hearings is necessary, and adherence to rules as well, to make sure that all the speakers have a reasonable chance to be heard. For example, let's say you went to protest CRT, and the person in front of you stood up there talking about a pending alien invasion, and all the evidence he has to back it up. Is the committee or hearing board violating his civil rights by telling him that's not what they're talking about and taking away his time, shutting his mic off? My point is there are situational limits on all speech and expression. Go stand in the street and protest or talk about aliens, if that's not what's on the docket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When school board members shut the mics off of protesters of CRT, that was much more of a violation of government authority over public discussion than an instance of a private company protecting itself from saboteurs.
Can you link me to this? Just as a point of fact, those meetings often have points of order and time limits on speech from the crowd, you're not allowed an unlimited time and generally have to stay on topic. I've seen plenty of footage of bizarre rants at public hearings, most of the time speech is cut off when not relevant to the topic at hand or when time expires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can we all just agree that freedom of speech is a nonsense issue and that when people rail against attacks on free speech in today’s culture they are full of crap?
I don't necessarily agree that in general it's a nonsense issue full stop, that's a little broad for me. But I do find that when people are railing against it, what they mean in general is they want the right to be assholes in some form or fashion but do NOT want to face any civil consequence for it. Like they want to have racist or bigoted views, but do not want anyone to dislike them for it, or don't want to face reduced business or any sort of ostracization stemming from it. I'm fully in support of a private business owner being within his rights to post a "I don't like X PEOPLE and will not do business with them" on the door of his sandwich shop or whatever, but I'm also fully in support of that guy's community collectively boycotting his business as a result.
Also most of the time freedom of speech issues are people getting mad at PRIVATE BUSINESSES limiting your speech. 1A only guarantees the government won't do it. It in no way guarantees that you can post racist rants on twitter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Those 144k may only be executives, so to speak; but there's a whole organization in supporting roles.
Also please point me to the part of the bible where the people who are saved are then separated into 'levels' of saved, such that there are 'executives' versus 'office workers.'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
PLease point to the verses in the bible where they specifically mention that people are needed to staff a heavenly administration here on earth, and that Jesus won't return until he's got a full staff. You're ridiculous, and also, clearly fauxlaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
OK, so you're talking about a different god than the one in the bible, and a different heaven, one that I think you have invented on your own, as I've never heard of anything along those lines. You should talk to EternlView, he has similar notions in that they are unique and inscrutable. Though you do say Jesus, which maybe is a different entity than the one in the bible, I can't tell. Maybe you're one of these "characters" who spends their time trolling debate websites, I guess that's also a possiblity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
So heaven requires PEOPLE to "run" it? Are you talking about a different Jesus than the standard Jesus? Because that version, the abrahamic version, decidedly doesn't need anyone's help 'running' an 'administration.' What's that administration going to 'administrate,' exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
But administration of the kingdom of heaven will require many, many people, but they have to know what they're doing. Qualification for the job; simple as that. I guess there are not enough, yet.
Why would there be an administration 'required'? Aren't these entities all powerful? Why do they need anyone's help?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Start with the first one: can you confirm that whales have two nostrils now instead of blowholes? Over what amount of time did this change?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Can you give me an example?
Created:
-->
@janesix
How do you show something to be true?
Starting to ask some really interesting questions! It depends on what you're trying to demonstrate as being true, I think. For example, I can say "In 1936, I believe Lou Gehrig won the Triple Crown for the Yankees." This is a claim I can check pretty easily: see if Gehrig led the league in average, homers and RBI in 1936. If someone else wants to know if it's true, I can show them the reference materials I used. Don't believe the baseball encyclopeida? Okay, no problem: we can go back to the daily box scores of each game in which Gehrig played in 1936 and add up all his stats, and see if the baseball encyclopedia is correct. Once we do that, we can then say "this encyclopedia is accurate", which would then lead us to believe that other claims in it about Lou Brock stealing bases or Tony Gwynn's batting titles, without then having to do the same exercise (though that exercise remains available, you have what's called justifiable confidence in the truth of the encyclopedia, should you decide to challenge it).
So, then how would we know anything about god or gods? We'd have to have some way to confirm anything, which is to your point. I wouldn't say "I know beyond reasonable doubt that Lou Gehrig won a triple crown in 1936 because my parents told me, and a couple of other people have said he did. I don't care to check if that's true." They might be right, but there's a couple of ways to find out if that's the case. Not so with the supernatural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
All that DOES sound daunting, until you realize that god can do it no problem through his magic, soooooo....science agrees and therefore argument over.
And don't you dare ask why if he can do it with his powers, he needed to hide something that's not exactly water in magma so he can use it. The answer is...he does work in mysterious ways!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
So is that a demonstration of how your mind works? Big straw man fan?
I get the original post, I just...was it supposed to be either thought provoking OR funny? THat's my main issue, your opinion is your opinion, but the premise is a mess. Has either AOC or Biden ever mentioned boxing? "AOC and Biden are at a boxing match" as a premise DEFINITELY sounds like the beginning of a joke, but what's there just falls apart immediately, it's kind of sad. All I'm saying is if you're going to take the time to start a topic, maybe do a few drafts next time.
Created:
Posted in:
I wish this were clever enough to qualify as a joke. It's kind of just a nonsense story that is neither funny nor thought provoking, then it leads to an ice cream / spoon thing that doesn't really connect to horses or whatever you're going for. Probably too late to edit it. I thought it was going to be banned because it's largely minorities beating on each other to the great benefit of white guys, at least there's some meat on that bone. Or maybe somehow vaccine / Covid related. Nope, it's just "I don't like these two and think they're dumb!" which is kind of one dimensional. Workshop it, bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
See, I told you you wouldn't get it. You are stuck on everyone has to cater to you regardless of how fucking disgusting, immoral and perverted your demands are.“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead.I will not respond anymore.
Are you even reading what i'm writing? I clearly said they DON'T have to cater to me or anyone else if they're a private business. I don't know why you're not getting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Suppose you go to a photographer and ask him to take pictures of you while you take a shit in your back yard. If he refuses and says it's disgusting and gross, has he refused service?
YES.
Now enter you who sues for refusing service costing the baker and the photographer thousands in legal fees and public condemnation because they don't want to cater to your demands because they find them disgusting immoral or perverted.
I wouldn't sue them, you continue to miss. Legal fees aren't the problem at hand, sorry, that's a different issue. Public condemnation has nothing to do with the government, we can agree, right? And one more time, in my book they are within their legal rights to refuse service for any reason or none.
I am just pointing out that the government had nothing to do with whatever the repercussions ended up being. THat was their community.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
forcing someone to do what they believe to be immoral or perverted as refusing service.
What were these people forced to do, exactly?
I'd say you're making a distinction without a difference, but you're not really even making a distinction: they decided they were not comfortable rendering their services. It's pretty simple man, I don't know what 'concept' you're talking about.
And what exactly would you suggest their legal recourse be if they were discriminated against illegally, if not the "gun barrel of the government" AKA civil court?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The baker said he would make a cake just not one depicting a gay wedding, service was not refused. Its no different than asking a baker to make a cake shaped like a dick or some other depiction the baker finds inappropriate.. The photographer did not refuse service he declined because it involved a gay wedding, again same scenario. Both parties were sued using the judicial system to force them or pay heavy fines, which they did. Also they were publicly persecuted by the news media.. But what ever, you find no fault in forcing people using the gun barrel of govt (THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM) to cow tow to what they believe patently immoral and perverted
SO the baker said he wouldn't make a gay wedding cake, but didn't refuse service? Didn't he refuse to make a cake celebrating a gay couple's wedding? You're right, it's no different than refusing to make a cake shaped like a dick...BOTH ARE REFUSING SERVICE. For different reasons, one of which comes with legal questions (the gay wedding vis a vis discrimination laws), but both are services the baker is refusing to render. The photographer declined to photograph a gay wedding, you're right, same scenario: SERVICES REFUSED. Yes, both people were sued, by their fellow citizens. What other legal recourse do you think they have or should have when they feel they're being discriminated against illegally? They have to take the issue to court. That's not "using the gun barrel of government," it's availing yourself of your rights as an American citizen. They were not forced to pay heavy fines, either.
I ask again: how was the Government involved in persecuting these two? Obviousl legal system is part of small g government, but it's not the Government bringing the cases, it's people.
And one more time, I don't think they should have been forced to do anything they didn't want to do. THey're private business owners. They're not outside their legal rights to refuse service for any reason at all. But that also means they're not immune to repercussions from the private sector either. Can't cry about other citizens using their rights, either, that includes their right to assemble and protest, or their right to exercise free speech by telling anyone who'll listen they think you're a bigot, or starting their own business next door that takes away business from you because they'll serve whoever can pay. Again, no government involvement at all there. It's starting to sound like conservatives just kinda want the right to be the only asshole in the room wherever they go, and aren't really about principled conservative thought at all, if you ask me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I can't believe that there are dead relatives and spirits around me and just ignore that and not honor them the way I should. It's lazy.
So you maintain your position out of what you feel is an obligation to these spirits and relatives to do so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't want to get in detail but it was out of my control and I felt that I had no control. God was the one I feel that kept me stable, especially throughout those troubling times I endured.
I'm a firm believer in whatever it takes to get you through the night.
But don't mistake what I'm saying: not that you could have done anything about it, that's not what I mean by responsibility and accountability. What you're talking about is what I meant by the distribution of bad 'luck,' which is kind of the wrong word. Bad things happen to all people, sometimes it's just your turn when the wheel stops turning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's interesting, I used to have the exact opposite effect when I was a believer when things like that happened. I have a lot of relatives who feel the same way you do, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I just can't bring myself to think that way, as the answers to the inevitable questions never make any sense to me. I find comfort, for lack of a better word, knowing that ultimately I'm only responsible for my own actions, and the people who are going to hold me accountable besides myself are the ones I care about, and that luck both good and bad is evenly distributed throughout the world, and that one day my entire life will be forgotten, and I'll return to the physical elements that make me up, which maybe one day will end up as a comet or a planet or a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam, as the saying goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So the photographer refused to be at a gay wedding, and the baker refused to make something depicting gay marriage (not sure what that would entail but okay)....so how is that different than "refusing service"? And again, it wasn't the UNITED STATES Vs these merchants. It was private citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
@Fruit_Inspector
Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bangI asked you how this statement makes sense and you failed to do so.
Sorry, I must have missed this question. For something to HAPPEN, it has to at one point not been occurring, then it starts to occur, then either continues occurring to some indeterminate point (has been 'happening since the beginning of time', let's say), or stops occurring, and passes into the part of time we know as "the past," having happened already. None of this is at all possible without time itself, we can agree, I'm sure, as these events occur in sequence, and the span of that sequence is time passing. Seems pretty sensible, agree? WIthout time, nothing 'happens' as we define it, otherwise, everything would happen all at once, starting and ending, which doesn't make sense.
I thought you were asking me to explain how time began at the big bang, hence my citation and suggested reading.
it's not possible to seek a neutral position in this, by claiming your claim is that you dont know how the universe began. the problem, is that any explanation for how the universe began breaks down, and must be a special exception that can't be demonstrated. that means if a person has the balls to speculate a theory, they are committing a fallacy, according to you. your position isn't neutral if you call anyone speculating as committing fallacy, when all we can do is speculate.
I don't seek a neutral position, it's the only sensible position to take on "how did the big bang happen." It's literally something that cannot be known. Speculation isn't theorizing, it's guessing, and there's no reason your guess should be taken any more seriously than a giant's fart unless you can provide a compelling ARGUMENT supported by EVIDENCE that would move your guess in front of my guess. "All we can do is speculate" is another way to say "I don't know, we don't know, and all evidence points to that we cannot know." What's wrong with saying "I just don't know"? THat's all I am doing. I don't need to speculate my own theory to explain why anyone else's doesn't work or is, in fact, fallacious. Your speculation doesn't work because it jumps outside of logic and rationale into the realm of guesses and assertions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
isn't lud guilty of special pleading by his own standard? as ram has pointed out, every theory about the beginning of the universe breaks down. yet lud says everything needs time to begin, his exception that the universe doesn't need time to begin. and he can't demonstrate his special exception. so by his standard, he's committing a fallacy. of course, the better explanation is that neither of you are special pleading.... it's legit to speculate special circumstances, because it's just speculating. it makes absolutely no sense to call something a fallacy if there's a possibility that it could be true.
Accurately, I said everything needs time to EXIST, not to begin. But I'm not presenting a theory about what was before time, how the universe started, why the big bang happened, I'm saying I don't know. It makes no sense to think something is possible for no reason other than imagination, and all I'm asking is for the reason I should believe something that, at least as presented so far, is simply your imagination. You can use a special circumstance, but you're now departing from logic and rationale, and just asserting, not arguing.
What if I believed the universe was at one point farted out of a giant we can't see that exists outside of space and time? Is there a reason for you to believe that, because that's what I said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But if you cannot explain how time began without time, then I don't think your accusation of special pleading has any basis.
One doesn't follow from the other, but that's fine. It doesn't change that you're using special pleading. I don't know why, if you're really interested in it, you wouldn't want to bother looking up the spark notes version (I'll do it for you: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/time-and-the-big-bang/) but would rather some random forum poster who admits to not being qualified to explain it in any informed way explain it to you, unless...wait, are you not interested in trying to understand it, and would rather just shrug your shoulders and pick your own explanation? That can't be it, can it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Try reading "A Brief History of Time", by someone way more qualified to explain it than I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if what he said could be true, how can it be a logical fallacy? it's just a theory. if he said it must be true without question, then maybe it's a fallacy. i dont know why, people like to run around calling everything a fallacy, but then again i shouldn't expect otherwise on a debate website. if a cave man thought maybe things could travel faster than light... he's not committing a fallacy, he's just speculating.
It's not a theory, it's a guess. The cave man isn't working on a theory, he's not trying to prove himself wrong, he's just guessing, and without any work behind that, as you point out, he's speculating. There's literally no reason for anyone besides the cave man to think he's right, and his speculation has no impact on anyone else.
The reason it's special pleading is as follows. "All things abide by X, except this one thing." That in and of itself is NOT special pleading. The special pleading comes in when I ask for a demonstration. First, demonstrate all things abide by X. Great! Success. Now, demonstrate that this one thing is NOT in any way governed by X. Not say, DEMONSTRATE. Show. THe problem is there's nothing to show, because it 'exists outside of space and time', which even if it were coherent as a concept (as space and time are both required to meet the two basic conditions of existence), I must then ask "even if this one thing cannot be seen, can I at least see something else that exists outside of space and time, so that I can tell it's possible?" The answer is of course no, there's only one thing that exists outside of space and time. EVERYTHING else exists inside of it. The one thing is an undemonstrated cause, the only one of its kind, and cannot be demonstrated, it is exempt from conditions that literally every atom in the universe abides by...and is therefore 'special.' Using that as an argument without demonstrating ANY of it, basically to stop the chain of questions without earning that stop, is appealing to this unique specialness, or special pleading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you think there is some principle that says causes must be effects? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Big bang cosmology and the evidence thereof (CMBR). Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bang, then all things that happen thereafter are the subsequent effects. I don't know what 'caused' the big bang, or if that notion even makes sense if time didn't exist. See Ramshutu's post, there's a very good explanation of it there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm asking you: are there any causes that were not at one time effects? You said yes, only one thing. This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading. A universal statement that applies to everything, except one thing, and that one thing is only asserted to be special, not proven to be so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In other words, all causes were at one time effects, except for one thing?
Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yes, and it ound in FAVOR of the people who were refusing service. How is that being used AGAINST those people? Also, the judiciary branch didn't bring the case on its own. Civil cases are initiated by private citizens, not by the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior.
This proposition has literally nothing to do with atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How is this special pleading? If every effect must have a cause, you either have infinite regress or an initial uncaused cause. That does not automatically imply the Christian God, but you have the same problem to deal with. I hold that there is an initial uncaused cause. Which one do you hold to?
I don't hold to either. All the evidence points to time as we understand it beginning at the big bang. You're saying you know what caused the big bang and I'm saying I don't know.
Are there any causes that were at one point not effects?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Getting rid of the two party system creates MORE of an us vs them problem in my view. There'd be by definition more of "us" that didn't vote for whoever "they" are, which again is minority rule. Why stop at counties? What you're advocating for sounds less like "every town for itself" via natural progression. Why not just make it towns? Or neighborhoods? 3300 representatives?!? How would anything get done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Nothing. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
Ah, the exit from infinite regress through the door marked "special pleading." I don't know what an 'uncaused cause' looks like under your lack of definition. Please clarify because it sounds an awful lot like you believe something can come from nothing, which would run counter to your argument against the universe being able to come from nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, generally, as I don't have any evidence that something can come from nothing does not mean it's impossible, just that it's not been shown to be possible.
If God created ....
What created God?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You also wouldn't get, "red state vs blue state" and it would be good in unifying the country, especially as polarized as it is now.
As you lay it out, you'd be replacing that with red county versus blue county. THe problem of a fractured country seems to me to stem from everyone deciding to look at every issue in a red vs blue lens, it's not healthy. Ten or fifteen years ago, people couldn't care less who you voted for, and whoever you voted for didn't make you an enemy, a bad person, less or more of a patriot, and you didn't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything your vote getter said or did. Now, everything's a sign on your lawn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Take out the 'on its own part,' it adds nothing of value to your question, and it assigns agency unnecessarily to whatever 'something' is. I don't have any reason to believe that, no. Generally 'something' comes from 'something.'
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's why I think America should have instant runoff voting/alternative voting so in the event that we get a situation where no party wins a majority, then people end up having their 2nd choice get elected.
What's the difference between this and the primary system we are familiar with today, as you see it? You're kind of doing runoff votes over and over again through the states, then deciding on a nominee that while maybe not perfect for everyone was acceptable to most of the people under a certain banner?
I guess the answer would be "well if you're not under one of those you don't have the resources to compete with them," but that's an argument about money and its impact on elections, not really about voting either by state or county.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, I don't know.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It hopefully causes the democrats and republicans to become irrelevant and we are left with just smaller parties that are principled in their beliefs.
I always figured the point of having what's largely a two party system (not necessarily these two 'brands,' but party A and party B) was to avoid minority rule. If you have six parties, one of them wins, but the other five had more votes totaled together, so literally five in six votes were for something other than what is in power. This seems a road to chaos, not to actual functioning government. While neither A nor B will be perfect, if you have to choose between one or the other, then the winner will by definition have the most votes and the majority (rather than plurality) rules. That's the way it should be done ideally, but we have the electoral college, which is I guess mostly okay, it matches most of the time the popular vote winner, but I'd be fine going to a straight popular vote system.
Created: