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

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.