At 09:27 28-10-00 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
>I, for one, am a big fan of the two party system.
Of course you are. After all, if the US would switch to a system of
proportional representation, your beloved Republican Party would loose
quite a lot of power. (As would the Democrats, BTW).
>This system broadly
>ensures that we get a mainstream government, with mainstream policies.
Oh yeah, great. With the current flawed system, the government is made up
of one right-winged party and one even more right-winged party. Since that
leaves anyone out whose views are in or left of the center, I even dare
call your system not entirely democratic. :(
>The last thing I want is a proportional vote system where tiny minorities
>at the extremes, like the Greens hold the balance of power.
First, the fact that other parties have a presidential candidate that the
American public knows about proves that they are not "tiny minorities".
Second, not everyone who supports the Greens is an extremist. I think we
can safely assume that most of them are quite reasonable people. Not
everybody who votes Green is a lets-kill-all-humans-to-save-the-animals
type lunatic, John. Just like not all Republicans are
let's-blow-up-all-abortion-clinics-and-nuke-the-Russians type lunatics.
>This would
>probably require a coalition that gave the Greens control of the Dept. of
>Interior or something.
You just undermined your own statement that the Greens are a "tiny minority
at the extremes", John. A tiny extremist minority would most likely get
only 1 (or 2 at most) seats in Congress, so they would hardly be in a
position to form a coalition that would give them control of the Dept. of
Interior -- or any other Dept.
>Instead, our system gives the balance of power to people in the center
No it doesn't. As I've shown above, your system gives the balance of power
to people who are either right-winged or even more right-winged.
>and ensures a government that is broadly based on the
>mainstream consensus of the people.
That might be, but it still leaves a good part of the population (those who
don't vote Dem. or Rep.) out in the cold.
>I'm sorry, but Ralph Nader is an extremist nut, and the major poitns of his
>campaign platform, according to his own website, nationalized healthcare,
>publicly financed elections, and an end to free trade have all been soundly
>rejected by the American people.
Apparently not by *all* the American people -- otherwise he wouldn't have
*any* support in the race for presidency.
>Even worse, many of his supporters come
>from The Greens/Green Party USA, and those people are flat out lunatics,
>with almost no understanding of economics, or good governance.
John, do you realize you just insulted quite a lot of people (a few 100k? a
few million?) just because they don't share your right-winged views?
>The last
>thing I want is a system that would enfranchise all of these people on the
>fringes, from Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan to Harry Browne.
But isn't that what democracy is all about: giving a voice to everyone,
even though you disagree with them?
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
Brin-L Party Page: http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/party.html
