Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
But the minority parties have more say as parliamentary systems are created for power sharing. This isn't anything novel or unique to my perspective/opinion, it's basic political science 101. As in, this is something I learned my freshman year of college. If you think about it hard enough, it's easy to see why a "winner takes all" system (as opposed to proportioning seats based on voter percentages) creates two major parties.
As I said before, if the libertarians become powerful enough, they will simply replace one of the two major parties, as has been the history of political parties in this country (see: "The Whigs").
Under our system, minority parties logically have more sway when there are less voters involved (i.e. locally). However, as we have been a federalist country since 1865, they don't get much further than that.
and yet, local parties and independents often hold office. The opening for a replacement party is there. I'd like to see the national voice become less significant, not more.
I think I already addressed that.
At any rate, the outcome of the civil war changed our nation to a more federalist system.
What incentive is there for the GOP to cut the Libertarians in on anything? Now what if the libertarians had 10% of the seats in the house and voted as a block?
That is the difference.
Thinking tends to be from the bottom up, marching orders from the top down. I don't want the Republican party to listen, but to change or get out of the way. It's happening, faster than I thought possible.