Quote:
Originally Posted by speedyexpress48
Well, when it comes to a multi party system, here's the kicker; if all goes right (or wrong, depending on who you are,) the party that takes less than a quarter of the votes can get an absolute majority in government. Hell, while Canadian elections aren't this bad, they're not too far from it, with a Party and a Prime Minister that many Canadians absolutely hate controlling everything without any sort of checks or balances, and the two main opposition parties are pretty much powerless due to the fact that both parties combined with the 4 or 5 MPs from the opposition isn't enough to do anything.
|
To be honest, I don't know too much about the setup of the Canadian government. I wasn't suggesting that the American system adopt the Canadian (or Australian) government layout, just the voting system. Australians should correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the votes are tallied according to a ranking system.
For example, when voting for president I was presented with four or five choices (not including the write-in choice). I get to choose one, and one only. Most Americans know that most other Americans are going to vote for one of two parties, meaning that a vote for any candidate besides the "big two" might as well be leaving the vote for president blank. It will show up in the statistics, but it doesn't really count for anything. And if you
really don't want one of those "big two" candidates to win, well... you'd better contribute your vote to the other "big two" candidate. (For state-level positions, all positions listed two candidates, and in some cases, only one.)
If a ranking system were employed instead, this is how it would operate: I would rank all candidates by my preferences. If my first-ranked candidate didn't receive enough high rankings ("votes") from other voters and was ultimately taken out of the race, then instead of invalidating my vote entirely, my second highest choice would receive my nomination. In other words, I could vote (rank) who ever I wanted, secure in the knowledge that my vote would still count toward something even if my top choice didn't make it. This would free people from feeling that they had to strictly vote for one of the "big two," as they could give their first ranking(s) to third-party candidates. As long as they ranked one of the "big two" above the other, they could be secure in knowing that even if it came down to a "big two" race again, their vote in that scenario would still count... but the need to rank one of the "big two" very highly simply to "have their vote count" would no longer be an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedyexpress48
Plus, even if the NSA is completely struck down and closed down, you think that surveillance won't continue? They'll just rebuild it and call it something else, make it more secret and it'll run until the next scandal, and the cycle will go on. Again and again and again...
|
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't fight it or be upset over it? I have no doubt that it has been going on for a very long time, just as I have no doubt that people will try to create and further develop similar programs in the future even if this one is shut down. That doesn't make it pointless to go against it.