Thread: Being a Conservative Doesn't Mean You Have to Be a Shill For the Goverment

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It works, because it's accountable and representative of the people. Unhappy? Let the 10,000 people in your neighborhood area change it, rather than change it for 300 million people.
It's also why I advocate the Congressional District method for the Electoral College; the most representative and fair way to elect a President.

I don't know...I still think the 'elect a broom handle' method would result in better policies.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't know...I still think the 'elect a broom handle' method would result in better policies.

Benefits, though, to a NON-winner-take-all system? Third parties. There's a greater chance that third party candidates can win. (And thanks to the internet, getting the word out is much easier for them.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Benefits, though, to a NON-winner-take-all system? Third parties. There's a greater chance that third party candidates can win. (And thanks to the internet, getting the word out is much easier for them.)

It was a poorly worded joke.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You should read the thread entitled "The Balance between Liberals and Conservatives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage." Feel free to skim through it but basically I'm arguing along the same vein. Remove the electoral college and implement government convergence that starts in the neighborhood (roughly 100-300 people) and allow them to select their representative who goes to the next echelon of government (municipal/town hall) and have them reach consensus for the municipality. The municipality's representative then meets in the district and so forth.

My problem with starting government on the town or district level is you're still vulnerable to mob fervor and propaganda (Mayors in this country are crooked as shit). When you keep the constituency small, you cut out a lot of that vulnerability.

Your system doesn't actually work. Different regions have different cultures, values, and needs. To force a consensus over a large geographical area will ALWAYS result in oppression, regardless of how the representatives are elected. Why must it go beyond the local level? You're still thinking in the wrong way.

Originally Posted by cmind

Your system doesn't actually work. Different regions have different cultures, values, and needs. To force a consensus over a large geographical area will ALWAYS result in oppression, regardless of how the representatives are elected. Why must it go beyond the local level? You're still thinking in the wrong way.

Well there actually is something to what he is saying. A cosmopolitan geographical area tends to be more tolerant of "strange behavior." Since there is such a diffusion of ideas, it makes it difficult for one resounding idea to maintain power thus causing decentralization.