|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Depends. For a winner-takes all system (US), you vote for a
3rd party that will never have any power but which is
against X - because the other two parties watch those
parties to identify potentially useful issues.
In proportional voting system, you just pick someone else
who agrees with you.
Now, in terms of winning and actually getting a good
decision, you opt out of democracy, unfortunately.
Democracy mostly seems to reduce completely obnoxiously
horrible decisions.* It doesn't make good ones. This makes
sense - think about whether or not you get good decisions
out of committees.
--Erwin
*Eg., in communist China, one such decision was to eliminate
birds through people power to reduce the amount of seed they
ate. (Actually, if you mobilize a whole country, you can
reduce the bird population quite rapidly - they can't fly
forever...) Of course, that does leave the insect question
wide open.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
> How do you vote against it? Especially if it's a
> two-horse election?
That's a separate point.
What we're talking about here is pols who don't even bother doing what they told
you they would.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
...and if they don't work out (LibDems?) you vote fourth party. And if they
(and the fifth and sixth and seventh party) are co-opted too, look at the
history of the world, and you'll see that the next step is civil war or
revolution.
Deny the majority of the people the ability to change governmental policy at the
ballot box, and they'll find another way to do it. No getting around it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
