- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,254
- 9,216
- 2,030
How is this "tactic" as you call it an "invalid argument"???
In the US right now there are two sides, they'll do anything, say anything to get what they want, which is to convince people to vote for them (or at least not to vote for the other side).
They do this with narratives.
I know this because I see the narratives. I also know the political systems of other countries quite well because I studied them. I see what issues are big issues at US elections compared to what issues are big issues in other countries, and they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
If I asked you to define the Democrats and Republicans, you'd probably go for their positions on guns, abortion, climate change... things that aren't day to day issues.
There are some things where there's a vague kind of difference. Taxes, for example. Republicans are in favor of lower taxes, in general, though doesn't always work in practice, and lower social spending. Democrats are in favor of higher taxes and more social spending.
Democrats like to give free money to poor people, Republicans like to give free money to rich people.
Democrats like going to war, Republicans really like going to war. Not much difference there.
But in places like the UK, Germany etc, people are more interested in the issues that impact their daily life. Abortion does not. Guns do, but in a negative way and they're not an issue in other first world countries so much because people have more fear of guns.
So, me coming on here and stating that BOTH SIDES throw their narratives to get the majority of the votes in tight elections is somehow a "tactic" that is an "invalid argument" makes me wonder why you're saying this. Because this is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT GOING.
I support Proportional Representation because it leads to more political parties.
This in turn leads to more choice for people when voting.
It leads to political parties taking definite stands on policies, rather than having certain issues like guns and abortion that aren't so daily life orientated, they focus on what matters.
People don't have to say "I don't like this issue this party is standing on, but I hate that party even more, so I'm going to have to vote for this issue I don't like like", rather they can vote for the party that is suited to them.
It leads to little negative voting, people voting AGAINST the party they don't like.
It leads to more oversight in politics. If two parties are scratching each others's backs, then another party will come along and blow them both out of the water.
I'm sorry if I know what I'm talking about and it gets in the way of your bullshit entertainment.
