Tweet
My scenario (admittedly a dream) involved BOTH parties splitting, Imran.
-Arrian
-Arrian
-
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood. -
I'd assume because she was not his preferred choice? I hope she wasn't, anyway. I have to assume she was some sort of complex compromise, sort of like:Originally posted by MrFun
If McCain staffers are so infuriated with his loss, why don't they give McCain a knock on the head for choosing such an awful running mate? She was a BAD choice.
McCain: LIEBERMAN FTW!
GOP: ????? HECK no. We need some xtian love, yo! Tim Pawlenty's yo dog.
McCain: TP? Hez a luzer. I need a dude I can trust to not be whack. Outside teh loop.
GOP: Mike Huckabee!
McCain: WTF? He's worse than Rom-shizzle.
GOP: Well There is teh wmn in Alaska ...
McCain: Can has Palin?
GOP: Okays.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
No, he's saying that this centrist party would attract moderate Democrats too, resulting in an effective three-way split: Loony Left, Loony Right, Center. So both parties are diminished. Not likely IMO.
EDIT: And he beat me to it.Comment
-
One can only dream.Originally posted by Elok
Loony Left, Loony Right, Center.
Comment
-
Exactly. Just wishcasting a bit there...
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Out of curiosity, Imran...why do you suppose that is?Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It would be nigh on impossible for the Republicans to win in the next 20 years (at least) if the RR loonies took off. To some (ie, Democrats) that may be good.
I'm not baiting you, I'm just curious to know your thoughts on it.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Ah, my scenario doesn't involve thinking the Democrats would be that dumbOriginally posted by Arrian
My scenario (admittedly a dream) involved BOTH parties splitting, Imran.
-Arrian
.
Out of curiosity, Imran...why do you suppose that is?
Both parties are large coalitions. The Dems have their moderates and their far more progressive sphere (these ran into each other during the Clinton Health Care debacle of 1993). The Repubs have their moderates and the RR. If the RR leaves, you are left with the moderates and in a first past the post system means that the Dems will win far more (1 coalition party vs. two parties about half that size). In a Parliamentary system, it'd be perfectly ok. But that's not what we have.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
*nods*
I get you.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
So basically the problem is the system.
Proportional Representation in the House of Representatives now!
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Methinks it's about time for a coup for the strictly limited purpose of modifying to a multiparty system and nothing more. It'd be easy to implement in the House & Senate, with coalitions building themselves with respect to individual bills, but it certainly couldn't jive with the Electoral College unless either A) several runoffs are used or B) losing candidates can "donate" their EC votes to others to create a majority. That or there could just be a straight popular vote and the plurality takes all. Either way it wouldn't be necessary to have a pure parliamentary appointment of the executive like in Britain et al.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In a Parliamentary system, it'd be perfectly ok. But that's not what we have.
(Ahh pipe dreams )
Comment
-
Bah, the House is fine. The Senate should be changed to PR.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So basically the problem is the system.
Proportional Representation in the House of Representatives now!
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
Screw that... there is a reason the Senate is called the mature House. Having to represent an entire state means you have a diverse electorate you have to placate and makes you less crazy.
Senate
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
It also means the tiny states have a disproportionate amount of power.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Screw that... there is a reason the Senate is called the mature House. Having to represent an entire state means you have a diverse electorate you have to placate and makes you less crazy.
Senate
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
Which is fine by me. The country was formed by a collection of states and I like having states being able to do their own thing.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
"Their own thing," what like slavery and Jim Crow? [/token]Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which is fine by me. The country was formed by a collection of states and I like having states being able to do their own thing.Comment
Comment