At 04:27 PM 10/28/00 +0200, Jeroen wrote:
>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).
Actually, if it were up to me, I would probably split my votes nationall
between the Republican and Constitution Parties. If I lived in NY State,
I could support the Conservative Party and the Right to Life Party, all of
which far closer represent my views than the Republican Party which I
consider too moderate for my tastes.
>>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. :(
Maybe you could dare consider that we Americans are not European, and look
at things differently. We *had* a very left wing party, the Democratic
Party of the 1930's through 1970's. That Party was defeated soundly over
the course of the 1980's, forcing it to reinvent itself as a slightly
left-of-center Party in 1992 to avoid losing power completely at the
national level. America is a right-of-center nation, and our *democratic*
system returns right-of-center governments fairly consistently. You may
think of them as extremists, but they're our extremists. Calling them
undemocratic, however, is stooping into the gutter.
>>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".
For sufficiently small definitions of tiny.
>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.
That's true..... I was referring to the people who support The Greens/Green
Party USA, whose party platfrom was the subject of our previous discusison.
>>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.
I'm extremely curious as to why you view this as a consequence of a system,
rather than the nature of our body politic.
>>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.
Well, it still leaves them as full-fledged participants in the political
process.
>>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?
Actually, not "just". I did it in our previous disection of their
platform. I am referring to a very specific platform, which may or may
not match the platforms of the European Greens.
After all, what percentage of trained economists endorse a "maximum wage"?
.1%? .01%?
.001%? (I would say zero, but I've heard there's trained geologists
working for the Institute for Creation Research, so obviously the benefits
of educaiton are not universal.) As noted earlier, the list goes on.
>>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?
Voice? Yes. Power? No. Not unless you can get something approaching
a majoirty.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
