James Monroe was only 18 when he signed the Declaration of Independence. Aaron Burr only 20.

[frigidweirdo]

Well I can certainly not fault your backing of the idea that having multiple parties will somehow help the US. Yoou appear to be very enamored with their political system.
But the one thing I find funny is you somehow seem to be under the impression that having multiple parties will some how increase the IQ and integrity of those running for office and will increase the IQ of the average American voter. That is pure fantasy.
All you have to do is work in a big box store like Lowe’s or Home Depot and you will learn that the average IQ of a large percentage of people is almost equal to a plant. Some it is a wonder they are able to walk and breath at the same time. If the German system is so much better why are they not being emulated by every country? Why are they not the government that everyone looks up to?

Nope, I don't think it will increase the IQ of voters.

You don't need to increase the IQ of those running for office, many of them are quite smart. It's just their focus is making money, because they can.

Change it so that it becomes about politics, you might find different people winning seats. You might find that those who win need to win votes through policies rather than money.

Take the US presidential election. They focus on a few states. The swing states. Georgia will get a lot of money, Wyoming nothing.

With PR every vote counts. 500,000 people in Wyoming will be the same as 500,000 people in California (not saying California has 500,000 people).

Why don't people emulate what the Germans have? Because the people who control US politics prefer to control US politics. Rather than give it up to the people.

 

[Maxdeath]

Nope, I don't think it will increase the IQ of voters.

You don't need to increase the IQ of those running for office, many of them are quite smart. It's just their focus is making money, because they can.

Change it so that it becomes about politics, you might find different people winning seats. You might find that those who win need to win votes through policies rather than money.

Take the US presidential election. They focus on a few states. The swing states. Georgia will get a lot of money, Wyoming nothing.

With PR every vote counts. 500,000 people in Wyoming will be the same as 500,000 people in California (not saying California has 500,000 people).

Why don't people emulate what the Germans have? Because the people who control US politics prefer to control US politics. Rather than give it up to the people.

You seem to agree with me. Most are in it to line their pockets. Yes there are a few smart ones in congress. Very few.
You did not understand my question. If Germany has such a wonderful setup why is not every country following their shining example? Why are they not being held up as the greatest country?

I am more then aware of every reason you could give why America is not following the example and maybe even a few you have never thought of.

I would love to believe that the American voter could actually think and vote for the best candidates. But that will not happen, especially when the candidates they have to chose from are not qualified to run an apple cart giving away free apples

 

[frigidweirdo]

You seem to agree with me. Most are in it to line their pockets. Yes there are a few smart ones in congress. Very few.
You did not understand my question. If Germany has such a wonderful setup why is not every country following their shining example? Why are they not being held up as the greatest country?

I am more then aware of every reason you could give why America is not following the example and maybe even a few you have never thought of.

I would love to believe that the American voter could actually think and vote for the best candidates. But that will not happen, especially when the candidates they have to chose from are not qualified to run an apple cart giving away free apples

Again, a "shining example" to the people, is not necessarily a shining example to the people who control the power.

The US and UK (both have FPTP) have had continual governance for hundreds of years, passed over and over down the line from president to president, congress to congress, king to king or queen, prime minster to prime minster.

Germany had WW1 where the monarchy got destroyed, then the destruction of the Weimar Republic, which used PR but didn't have a cut off.

So they put PR in place because they had a new system, enforced because of the loss in WW1, then after Hitler they refined it and made it better.

Germany's system works well. But for whom? Not for the powers that be. But for THE PEOPLE.

Why don't the people of the US want PR? Ignorance. They don't know what PR is. Nobody tells them, so they don't know.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a map of people who use it.

There are different types, Germany and Bolivia used a mixed system, but the overall make up is PR. Many use the blue one which is a party list. And no, not all of these countries are shining examples of how to run a country. But, Latin America is less likely to have coups these days than they were before.

But Albania has 7 parties in their parliament.
Algeria has 14
Angola has 5

The US has 2, it's kind of embarrassing.

And a lot of people do look to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc for better government. At least those with any knowledge of world governments.

The US candidates only need to get picked for their party, and often they'll win because it's a choice between Rep and Dem.

Have PR and you actually have to have good policies in place, otherwise you will fail. Of course there will be those people who cling on, but Germany doesn't have a Trump, the UK (uses FPFP) had Boris Johnson.. a posher version.

 

[pknopp]

2 parties would be fine if they weren't both such failures.

 

[Maxdeath]

Germany may not have a Trump, but no other country has a dementia patient as a president or a front runner for one.
And you seem to believe that going with multiple parties will keep them and people like AOC out of politics. Where I believe that having multiple parties will will increase the likelihood of having more like them. As it gives more of them a better chance of getting one ticket or the other.
I see no signs of any of the better candidates being brought up in the last ten years nor do I see any in the foreseeable future
I use Eisenhower and Kennedy but you can use any of thirty or more years ago and show any one that in the last ten fifteen or so years that showed the same interest in actual governance. Show any number of the same that are being voted into congress. The few that do get in a not enough to change anything.
I could give you multiple examples of bad politicians that have been elected over and over again. Yet there have been other choices.
I guess it comes down to a very simple thought. The American people are not going to go beyond a two party system. And unless something changes then they will keep putting forward trash candidates and electing trash candidates. Any good candidate that gets in will be by mistake and will be in such a minority that they will not make any difference.