Why are liberals such idiots?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Why are liberals such idiots?
(21-08-2013 12:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 12:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  It seems it is more important that it be easy to vote people - especially a party - out of office than it is to have a perfect proportional representation. With many factions, nothing much gets done.

There is something not quite right about having a minority party holding the balance of power - the tail wagging the dog.

Think of governing as social experimentation. Group A wants to try policy X, group B wants to try policy Y. It may be the case that some blend of X and Y is good, but not usually. Let's try one or the other. The results should dictate whether A or B retains or assumes power, and we want that to be relatively quickly and we want it to be done peacefully. One thing that the Western democracies have generally succeeded at is the peaceful transition of power.

Sure, but the counterpoint is that a bare plurality shouldn't be given majoritarian control. 35% of the vote is not a carte blanche mandate! Absolute proportional representation is a bit wonky, but at least it avoids people being represented by local candidates who a majority voted against. Too simplistic a system (absolute proportional, winner-take-all districts) will always have big flaws , but then, that's why things like mixed-member exist.

I'm in favor of run-off elections until someone gets a majority.

Quote:Transitions of power aren't related to electoral systems. In fact, in a coalition government (ie, what is generally necessitated by minority results in a somewhat proportional system) there can be a change of government without an election, if the controlling party acts in such a way that their allies can no longer support them.

You are speaking about a parliamentary system. In a system like the U.S., the transition is at elections. There can be changes in power with defections or deaths, but primarily it is elections.

Winner-take-all has some advantages, the primary one being that the policies are clear, not compromised by coalition compromises. The results of those policies are squarely on the heads of those who voted for them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Why are liberals such idiots?
Do liberals have any moral code?:

Liberals are human beings, and therefore they are not all the same. I suspect that some do have a moral code of some kind. I (as a liberal) do not. Which is to say that I don't follow a "rulebook" of some sort. If you follow my posts, you will find that I have had opinion's that will have rankled other liberals. You will also find that I have capitulated to some ideas I thought others had explored more deeply than I had.

I hope to never have a "code"! : "a system of principles or rules <moral code>". The idea is a terror to me! Such a thing would be static and unresponsive to change.

Let's imagine a code in an imaginary time in the distant past. Let's say that this code developed shortly after man developed the ability to speak, and was to be passed down, verbally, until man could write. Let's imagine, further, that those who created our code shared our confusion with generations to follow. And were afraid that their children would make drastically wrong decision's.

Wouldn't this fear, cause the creators of the code to restrict the world, at our imaginary time, to it's the reality of that time?

If the descendants of this code had followed it until the present day, would humans have visited the moon?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Why are liberals such idiots?
But that's not the question that was really asked. The real question was: "If no religious view is correct, why don't we all just take what we want?" Why don't we ALL rape, steal, kill, do whatever we feel like doing!

Well, you already know the answer to that. It's because we would be a very short lived species, if we did that. Speaking as a human.

But there are animals and insects who do survive without the codes that you would find comfortable. Parasite's survive from their hosts. Some male animals will kill and eat their children. Humans have been known to kill children, found to be inadequate.

I am not an expert regarding the natural world, an suspect the you are not.

But, if you choose to delve into the value of "codes", with any honesty, I will assure you, that you have many years of study ahead of you!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Why are liberals such idiots?
(21-08-2013 01:56 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  But that's not the question that was really asked. The real question was: "If no religious view is correct, why don't we all just take what we want?" Why don't we ALL rape, steal, kill, do whatever we feel like doing!

Well, you already know the answer to that. It's because we would be a very short lived species, if we did that. Speaking as a human.

But there are animals and insects who do survive without the codes that you would find comfortable. Parasite's survive from their hosts. Some male animals will kill and eat their children. Humans have been known to kill children, found to be inadequate.

I am not an expert regarding the natural world, an suspect the you are not.

But, if you choose to delve into the value of "codes", with any honesty, I will assure you, that you have many years of study ahead of you!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Why are liberals such idiots?
(21-08-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm in favor of run-off elections until someone gets a majority.

A preferential ballot like Australia uses, conveniently enough, is an instant runoff.

(21-08-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are speaking about a parliamentary system. In a system like the U.S., the transition is at elections. There can be changes in power with defections or deaths, but primarily it is elections.

That's only a matter of circumstance. With a two-party system the only possible shift in balance of power is back and forth - through defections or retirement/death. With multiple parties and no clear majority? There's no rule against it. A powerful executive makes legislative control less all-important, of course.

(21-08-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Winner-take-all has some advantages, the primary one being that the policies are clear, not compromised by coalition compromises. The results of those policies are squarely on the heads of those who voted for them.

And the gigantic flaw is that "those who voted for them" are a minority - and potentially a tiny plurality. Low turnout is one thing - I find it infuriating, but if you wash your hands of the process, you forfeit the right to bitch about the result. Less than 40% of votes cast should not be sufficient to monopolize power.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: