Gun ownership right Vs Voting right?

[Utilitarian]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

The problem is the states aren't important any more.

The US is living in the past, pretending this and that is important.

Yes, states are important at the state level, but at a national level, they're nothing now. Farmers in California are closer to farmers in Wyoming than they are to city folk in LA.

But nothing will change because the powers that be like being the powers that be and they control the people with this system. Why would they want to lose that to people power?

And back to the topic of this thread, people will go on about needing ID to vote or not, but it's a non-issue.

Needing ID to get a gun, well it seems like the US has changed since 1791. Guns are having a massively negative impact on the country, and so to is the way people vote.

Consistency would be to want to drag the US into the 21st Century or keep it in the 18th.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

The problem is the states aren't important any more.

The US is living in the past, pretending this and that is important.

Yes, states are important at the state level, but at a national level, they're nothing now. Farmers in California are closer to farmers in Wyoming than they are to city folk in LA.

But nothing will change because the powers that be like being the powers that be and they control the people with this system. Why would they want to lose that to people power?

And back to the topic of this thread, people will go on about needing ID to vote or not, but it's a non-issue.

Needing ID to get a gun, well it seems like the US has changed since 1791. Guns are having a massively negative impact on the country, and so to is the way people vote.

Consistency would be to want to drag the US into the 21st Century or keep it in the 18th.

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

The problem is the states aren't important any more.

The US is living in the past, pretending this and that is important.

Yes, states are important at the state level, but at a national level, they're nothing now. Farmers in California are closer to farmers in Wyoming than they are to city folk in LA.

But nothing will change because the powers that be like being the powers that be and they control the people with this system. Why would they want to lose that to people power?

And back to the topic of this thread, people will go on about needing ID to vote or not, but it's a non-issue.

Needing ID to get a gun, well it seems like the US has changed since 1791. Guns are having a massively negative impact on the country, and so to is the way people vote.

Consistency would be to want to drag the US into the 21st Century or keep it in the 18th.

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

Sure, there are many issues surrounding the gun issue and mental health will be a big one.

Which again sends us back to how people are elected to government. If they have to represent the people, they're more likely to make a better country that functions.

Though guns are still an issue. Even in places like Germany or Switzerland, the number of gun deaths is higher than in places without them. Certain people get easy access to guns, they can then cause problems.

Yes, states are important at the state level. But PR at a national level wouldn't change the make up of more conservative or more liberal states at the local level.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

The problem is the states aren't important any more.

The US is living in the past, pretending this and that is important.

Yes, states are important at the state level, but at a national level, they're nothing now. Farmers in California are closer to farmers in Wyoming than they are to city folk in LA.

But nothing will change because the powers that be like being the powers that be and they control the people with this system. Why would they want to lose that to people power?

And back to the topic of this thread, people will go on about needing ID to vote or not, but it's a non-issue.

Needing ID to get a gun, well it seems like the US has changed since 1791. Guns are having a massively negative impact on the country, and so to is the way people vote.

Consistency would be to want to drag the US into the 21st Century or keep it in the 18th.

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

Sure, there are many issues surrounding the gun issue and mental health will be a big one.

Which again sends us back to how people are elected to government. If they have to represent the people, they're more likely to make a better country that functions.

Though guns are still an issue. Even in places like Germany or Switzerland, the number of gun deaths is higher than in places without them. Certain people get easy access to guns, they can then cause problems.

Yes, states are important at the state level. But PR at a national level wouldn't change the make up of more conservative or more liberal states at the local level.

If Germany or Switzerland are anything like the US in terms of gun deaths, the majority of their gun deaths are probably suicides. In the US overall, 60% of all gun deaths are suicides.

In certain US states, the percentage is even higher. If I remember correctly, it's about 90% suicides in Wyoming.

So, suicides represent people who will find a way to kill themselves, with or without a gun. And it's not like using a gun is the easiest method. Carbon monoxide poisoning is probably the easiest and most peaceful way to die, and it's a lot more successful. Plenty of people have survived shooting themselves in the head, and it's not pretty.

Solving the suicide problem is, again, a matter of mental health resources. It's also a matter of families looking after people. Sometimes, people don't act on the signs of depression to try and stop people from following through. Of course, in other cases, depression is so internalized that seeing the signs is extremely difficult.

As far as PR goes, yes, it wouldn't change the political makeup of states, but it would dramatically change how presidential campaigns work. It would basically mean that candidates would only need to campaign in about 10 to 15 cities (at most). They could safely ignore most rural areas.

 

[danielpalos]

It is. You are supposed to be a tax paying natural born citizen of our Republic.

voting has nothing to do with tax paying.

Are you on the right wing? Citizens can be taxed.

It has nothing to do with "wing."

Yes, it does. Only right-wingers want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" even without any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

If I don't need an ID to vote, which is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right why do I need an ID to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

All this BS about the Constitution.
The Constitution is outdated, that is why we have so many amendments.
The Founding Fathers were correct in every aspect? Hell NO. Thus amendments.
You clowns cling to the 2nd as if it is holy. It needs an update, thus an amendment.

Should legal citizens have the right to own a firearm. Absolutely.
No one is coming to take guns away.

Why are you afraid of registering your car? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of registering your boat? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of having legal title (Deed) to your property? You are NOT.

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

 

[danielpalos]

If I don't need an ID to vote, which is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right why do I need an ID to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

All this BS about the Constitution.
The Constitution is outdated, that is why we have so many amendments.
The Founding Fathers were correct in every aspect? Hell NO. Thus amendments.
You clowns cling to the 2nd as if it is holy. It needs an update, thus an amendment.

Should legal citizens have the right to own a firearm. Absolutely.
No one is coming to take guns away.

Why are you afraid of registering your car? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of registering your boat? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of having legal title (Deed) to your property? You are NOT.

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

In several nations where guns were registered, they did in fact take them away. This is what happened in Australia and the UK, for example.

And while it is true that the 2nd Amendment would make this more difficult for this government to do that, the current Court precedent only protects ownership of handguns, so technically, the ATF could be used to seize all rifles. That would be substantially easier to do if all rifles are registered.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

That logic can be used to justify just about any law.

Only illegals have a problem being legal to the law.

 

[Dadoalex]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

How about if the only people we required ID from were White men over 50?
Good with that?

Always hilarious watching the tiny brained "conservatives" trying to justify their racism and hypocrisy.

What racism? You shit for brains think racism is the only card you need to use.........that is getting old....

White men over 50 are fine with showing ID to vote you moron...as are black men over 50 and all normal Americans......it is you, and your racists in the democrat party that tell blacks they are too dumb to get ID in the two years between elections...that is you, you racist sack of shit.

No, shitbrain, ONLY White men over 50!

You pussies get your panties in a wad over wearing a mask IMAGIINE how your collective twats will explode over being forced to show an ID while the 18 YO Black just passes by.

As I've said before
If you want to force voter ID, PROVIDE them. Make sure every voter gets one before each and every election.

Shit stain.......ID is free, and they will even come to your house if you can't get one during the entire 2 year period before an election, you doofus.

It is racists like you who for some reason think that blacks and other minorities can't get ID.....why you think that is insane......and racist, yet there you are.....being insane and racist....

Did I say a word about cost ya stupid ****?

I said provide them. whatever the effort, whatever the cost. You want them, you provide them.

And you have to contact each and every registered voter before the election to ensure they have an ID.
The failure to provide an ID to a single voter forfeits the election for the party responsible.

How ya like that shitbrain?

 

[366h34d]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

 

[danielpalos]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

Like what? Fantasy is all y'all usually have not any valid arguments.

 

[366h34d]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

Like what? Fantasy is all y'all usually have not any valid arguments.

"Georgia voting law is racist, Black people need our help, let go!" . They never curb their victimhood

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is, even if there were more representatives, most of those wouldn't get heard. The reality is that parties form policies.

In Germany you have six political parties. Traditional right, traditional left, center right, environmental left, further left and further right (not far-right or far-left, just further towards left and right than center parties and traditional parties).

Germany has a 5% cut off. Denmark has a 2% cut off point.

Denmark seems to have 10 political parties, 7 of which have over 5% of the vote. 9 have over 3% of the vote.

This is real choice.

With FPTP the US has two parties.

The UK has three political parties, two liberal parties fight each other and hand the Conservatives the win almost always. And then you have some regional parties, only one ever has an impact, which is the DUP who sometimes prop up an ailing Conservative Party and trying to get them to kill Catholics and save fetuses, or some nonsense like that.

India also has FPTP, instead of parties, it is alliances that are important. There are five alliances, though the third largest alliance got 25 million votes from 600 million cast, or 4% of the vote, they wouldn't even get elected in Germany.

Under a 2% cut off they'd have 4 alliances, though everyone knows there are only two alliances that can realistically win.

FPTP has been shown to benefit the larger parties, and destroy smaller parties, as it does in the US.

I agree that some alternative voting form would be the ideal, whether it's instant runoff voting, approval voting, or single transferable votes. There are numerous ways to legitimize third parties.

Yes, but PR is the best.

Firstly because it gives individuals proper choice. Choosing between two rubbish political parties is not choice.

Secondly because it makes the system much for flexible.

UKIP in the UK got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat, and this was after fighting to get seats since 1993.

The AfD in Germany got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 94 seats, and this was after being a political party for something like five years.

Germans wanted to send a message to the main conservative party that they didn't like the direction they were going in, but still wanted a conservative party. So they got their wish.

Thirdly there's far more oversight.

The least corrupt countries in the world use PR. It has more political parties attacking the main parties in charge of the government. It often forces political parties to negotiate policies in order to form coalitions, and the people can easily act against those they feel aren't acting in their best interest by voting them out very quickly.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I thought that the 3 methods I mentioned are different forms of PR. Is PR a specific form of voting?

Instant runoff voting is similar to what France does for the presidency, for example. That's where you vote for your #1 preference and then your #2 preference. Instead of having a second runoff election, your vote simply shifts to your #2 choice if your #1 choice wasn't among the top 2 vote getters at #1.

Approval voting is where you get to vote for as many candidates for an office as you want, and then the total vote tally is done. Whoever got the most votes in total wins. So, if 10 candidates run for an office, you can choose to vote for 1, 2, all 10, or any other number in between.

Single transferable votes are kind of like instant runoff voting. Australia uses this system, and it works like this: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

Instant runoff or Alternative Voting (AV) is like FPTP.

It is better than FPTP, but still not great as it'll often be done at constituent level.

So, the larger parties still gain an advantage here, because they're most likely to win the smaller battles.

Say for example 10% of the population likes the Fundamental Fundamentalists Socialist Party (FFS Party).

Then 40% like the Center Left Party(CLP)

In a PR election the 10% of the population would get somewhere between 10.5%-11.5% of the seats.

With AV or run off they'd most likely lose every seat they run for, because the CLP will almost always get more votes than them.

So, 10% want the FFS party but they get zero seats because they cannot get above the number of votes in any one constituency.

If it's for the presidency then it'd be better. However unless there's a history of other parties doing well in the House, you'd still get Rep v. Dem at the end of the day.

Unless you have a system where the whole country votes together (rather than as constituencies) then you'll have the larger parties doing proportionally better than the people want them to.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I don't think that's feasible for us on a national level because of the importance of states. It could work within each state, however.

But yeah, it would not be feasible for the presidency.

The problem is the states aren't important any more.

The US is living in the past, pretending this and that is important.

Yes, states are important at the state level, but at a national level, they're nothing now. Farmers in California are closer to farmers in Wyoming than they are to city folk in LA.

But nothing will change because the powers that be like being the powers that be and they control the people with this system. Why would they want to lose that to people power?

And back to the topic of this thread, people will go on about needing ID to vote or not, but it's a non-issue.

Needing ID to get a gun, well it seems like the US has changed since 1791. Guns are having a massively negative impact on the country, and so to is the way people vote.

Consistency would be to want to drag the US into the 21st Century or keep it in the 18th.

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

Sure, there are many issues surrounding the gun issue and mental health will be a big one.

Which again sends us back to how people are elected to government. If they have to represent the people, they're more likely to make a better country that functions.

Though guns are still an issue. Even in places like Germany or Switzerland, the number of gun deaths is higher than in places without them. Certain people get easy access to guns, they can then cause problems.

Yes, states are important at the state level. But PR at a national level wouldn't change the make up of more conservative or more liberal states at the local level.

If Germany or Switzerland are anything like the US in terms of gun deaths, the majority of their gun deaths are probably suicides. In the US overall, 60% of all gun deaths are suicides.

In certain US states, the percentage is even higher. If I remember correctly, it's about 90% suicides in Wyoming.

So, suicides represent people who will find a way to kill themselves, with or without a gun. And it's not like using a gun is the easiest method. Carbon monoxide poisoning is probably the easiest and most peaceful way to die, and it's a lot more successful. Plenty of people have survived shooting themselves in the head, and it's not pretty.

Solving the suicide problem is, again, a matter of mental health resources. It's also a matter of families looking after people. Sometimes, people don't act on the signs of depression to try and stop people from following through. Of course, in other cases, depression is so internalized that seeing the signs is extremely difficult.

As far as PR goes, yes, it wouldn't change the political makeup of states, but it would dramatically change how presidential campaigns work. It would basically mean that candidates would only need to campaign in about 10 to 15 cities (at most). They could safely ignore most rural areas.

Well, the UK had 32 gun homicides in 2015

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Switzerland had 18.

That's a rate of 0.22 for Switzerland and 0.02 for the UK. Switzerland has a population of 8 million to the UK's 65 million.

Most states get ignored right now. Candidates only look at the swing states.

 

[whitehall]

There is no background check required to vote and a photo I.D. is necessary for life in the 21st century. How racist democrats get away with singling out Black people for a lack of a photo I.D. is anybody's guess. Does political loyalty trump allegations of racism? It looks like it.

 

[danielpalos]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

Like what? Fantasy is all y'all usually have not any valid arguments.

"Georgia voting law is racist, Black people need our help, let go!" . They never curb their victimhood

What excuse do right wingers have for protesting as much as they do?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

Liberals have no issue with requiring citizens to provide ID when registering to vote.

Once registered and current on the voting rolls, there’s no good reason to require an ID every time a citizen votes as voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Moreover, often ID requirement are such that older voters of color lack the required documentation to obtain the type of ID required.

Proof? Older voters of color cannot get an ID why?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

Like what? Fantasy is all y'all usually have not any valid arguments.

"Georgia voting law is racist, Black people need our help, let go!" . They never curb their victimhood

What excuse do right wingers have for protesting as much as they do?

Freedom of speech. What excuse do you have for being an ignorant asshole? You have an entire thread dedicated to your hatred of women.

 

[danielpalos]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The problem with the left is they believe a bunch of shit not even in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mention are not.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Biden's Jim crow 2.0 comment is leftist dolts' fantasy

Like what? Fantasy is all y'all usually have not any valid arguments.

"Georgia voting law is racist, Black people need our help, let go!" . They never curb their victimhood

What excuse do right wingers have for protesting as much as they do?

Freedom of speech. What excuse do you have for being an ignorant asshole? You have an entire thread dedicated to your hatred of women.

Just proof that right wingers are even more ignorant assholes.