Sure, they have all been indoctrinated into thinking the same way by the state and educational system and media
Just so long as those in government don't have to pay taxes, that is really all that mattersLol. Even then MAGAts wanted representation without taxation.
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse.Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Lol. Even then MAGAts wanted representation without taxation.
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse.Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
sure did. But someone wants to discuss it, they ought to at least read it.
and these same people will point their authoritative finger in your eye and tell you to pay the fk up sucka, and demofks vote for them
Are you fucking with me?
thank you chatgptIt's not easy to make the third popular. They kept failing.
The failure of third political parties in America can be attributed to several factors, including the dominant two-party system, electoral mechanics, and voter perceptions.
1. Winner-Takes-All System: The Electoral College and single-member districts favor a two-party system. This discourages voting for third parties, as voters often perceive them as less viable.
2. Ballot Access: Third parties frequently face significant hurdles in gaining access to ballots across states, requiring extensive resources and organization to meet varied state laws.
3. Funding Challenges: Major parties attract more funding due to established donor networks and larger voter bases, making it difficult for third parties to compete effectively.
4. Voter Perception: Many voters fear "wasting" their vote on a third party, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle where third-party candidates struggle to gain traction.
Solutions might include:
- Ranked-Choice Voting: This system allows voters to rank candidates, enabling support for third-party candidates without the fear of wasting a vote.
- Reducing Ballot Access Barriers: Streamlining and standardizing ballot access requirements could provide a more level playing field for third parties.
- Public Financing of Campaigns: Providing public funds for third-party candidates who meet specific criteria could help alleviate funding disparities.
- Increasing Awareness: Educating voters about the importance of diverse political representation can encourage support for third parties.
==>These strategies could enhance the viability of third parties and contribute to a more pluralistic political landscape in America.
I am against RCV.
Yes, yes, yes. The blame for our shitty leaders should be placed on the people who didn't vote for them.
This should be good ...
I think this explains it better than my words:
prospect.org
Most examples of widespread usage of rcv, primarily Australia, show that you still tend to end up with two dominant parties. The big difference is that we get an accurate read on support for third parties, and their issues get more attention - which encourages the coalition building as you suggest.
It's different because, under rcv, we'll know how many people prefer the third party over the majors. If we went RCV, and libertarians (or greens, or whoever) got 20% of the first place votes, that will get the attention of the dominant parties. As it is, we have no idea how many people actually prefer the third parties because most of them are scared away by the spoiler affect and choose the lesser of two evils.
Most current webpages showing the text no longer even show it. Maybe he could find it in an article about it or a copy with lined out text.
