Swiss Billionaire Quietly Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats

[daveman]

It's the JOOZ I tell ya, it's the JOOZ!

Nobody's nibbling your bait.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

 

[struth]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

 

[frigidweirdo]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

 

[struth]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

 

[frigidweirdo]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

Oh, is it?

Then the US is undemocratic.

Take a person in California. They don't really have a vote for the President because the Democrats win every time there, more or less.

Even though California is THE LARGEST REPUBLICAN STATE with 6 million votes going to Trump, more than any other state, those 6 million people were effectively disenfranchised, ignored.

If there were PR, even if there were German style PR with a parliament and the leader of the country coming from the largest party, the Republicans in California would have actually had some input in who their leader was, but they didn't.

 

[struth]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

Oh, is it?

Then the US is undemocratic.

Take a person in California. They don't really have a vote for the President because the Democrats win every time there, more or less.

Even though California is THE LARGEST REPUBLICAN STATE with 6 million votes going to Trump, more than any other state, those 6 million people were effectively disenfranchised, ignored.

If there were PR, even if there were German style PR with a parliament and the leader of the country coming from the largest party, the Republicans in California would have actually had some input in who their leader was, but they didn't.

Not at all, the people vote in their states for who they want to be President.

In your beloved Germany, they don't get a voice at all

The major problem with Germany's paraliement system...and I'll quote ""Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." -- David Cameron.

or as Churchill said the election was determined ""determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

Oh, is it?

Then the US is undemocratic.

Take a person in California. They don't really have a vote for the President because the Democrats win every time there, more or less.

Even though California is THE LARGEST REPUBLICAN STATE with 6 million votes going to Trump, more than any other state, those 6 million people were effectively disenfranchised, ignored.

If there were PR, even if there were German style PR with a parliament and the leader of the country coming from the largest party, the Republicans in California would have actually had some input in who their leader was, but they didn't.

Not at all, the people vote in their states for who they want to be President.

In your beloved Germany, they don't get a voice at all

The major problem with Germany's paraliement system...and I'll quote ""Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." -- David Cameron.

or as Churchill said the election was determined ""determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

In Germany they are the ones who choose. In Germany they have a 5% cut off point, and they get 6 political parties which are viable to choose from.

Denmark has a 2% cut off point. They have 10 viable parties.

The US has two.

It's not hard to see who has the most choice.

 

[August West]

The dirty Democrats in action. This needs investigation, not the bullshit over Giuliani and FARA.

Hansjörg Wyss, who recently dropped his bid to buy Tribune Publishing, has been a leading source of difficult-to-trace money to groups associated with Democrats.​

​

He is not as well known as wealthy liberal patrons like George Soros or Tom Steyer. His political activism is channeled through a daisy chain of opaque organizations that mask the ultimate recipients of his money. But the Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has quietly become one of the most important donors to left-leaning advocacy groups and an increasingly influential force among Democrats.​

​

Newly obtained tax filings show that two of Mr. Wyss’s organizations, a foundation and a nonprofit fund, donated $208 million from 2016 through early last year to three other nonprofit funds that doled out money to a wide array of groups that backed progressive causes and helped Democrats in their efforts to win the White House and control of Congress last year.​

​

Mr. Wyss’s representatives say his organizations’ money is not being spent on political campaigning. But documents and interviews show that the entities have come to play a prominent role in financing the political infrastructure that supports Democrats and their issues.​

​

While most of his operation’s recent politically oriented giving was channeled through the three nonprofit funds, Mr. Wyss’s organizations also directly donated tens of millions of dollars since 2016 to groups that opposed former President Donald J. Trump and promoted Democrats and their causes.​

​

Beneficiaries of his organizations’ direct giving included prominent groups such as the Center for American Progress and Priorities USA, as well as organizations that ran voter registration and mobilization campaigns to increase Democratic turnout, built media outlets accused of slanting the news to favor Democrats and sought to block Mr. Trump’s nominees, prove he colluded with Russia and push for his impeachment.​

​

Several officials from organizations started by Mr. Wyss and his team worked on the Biden transition or joined the administration, and on environmental policy in particular Mr. Wyss’s agenda appears to align with President Biden’s.​

​

Mr. Wyss’s growing political influence attracted attention after he emerged last month as a leading bidder for the Tribune Publishing newspaper chain. Mr. Wyss later dropped out of the bidding for the papers.​

​

Born in Switzerland and living in Wyoming, he has not disclosed publicly whether he holds citizenship or permanent residency in the United States. Foreign nationals without permanent residency are barred from donating directly to federal political candidates or political action committees, but not from giving to groups that seek to influence public policy — a legal distinction often lost on voters targeted by such groups.​

​

Mr. Wyss’s role as a donor is coming to light even as congressional Democrats, with support from Mr. Biden, are pushing legislation intended to rein in so-called dark money spending that could restrict some of the groups financed by Mr. Wyss’s organizations.​

​

...​

​

Swiss Billionaire Quietly Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats (Published 2021)

Hansjörg Wyss, who recently dropped his bid to buy Tribune Publishing, has been a leading source of difficult-to-trace money to groups associated with Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

This is worse that Qanon becoming a force in the gop?

 

[struth]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

Oh, is it?

Then the US is undemocratic.

Take a person in California. They don't really have a vote for the President because the Democrats win every time there, more or less.

Even though California is THE LARGEST REPUBLICAN STATE with 6 million votes going to Trump, more than any other state, those 6 million people were effectively disenfranchised, ignored.

If there were PR, even if there were German style PR with a parliament and the leader of the country coming from the largest party, the Republicans in California would have actually had some input in who their leader was, but they didn't.

Not at all, the people vote in their states for who they want to be President.

In your beloved Germany, they don't get a voice at all

The major problem with Germany's paraliement system...and I'll quote ""Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." -- David Cameron.

or as Churchill said the election was determined ""determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

In Germany they are the ones who choose. In Germany they have a 5% cut off point, and they get 6 political parties which are viable to choose from.

Denmark has a 2% cut off point. They have 10 viable parties.

The US has two.

It's not hard to see who has the most choice.

Sure they get to vote for who is in paraliment...often getting stuck with everyones third or fourth pick...but tjhey don't get to pick who leads the executive.

It's a ok process, and more democratic then others....but it's ok. I prefer ours, in which we get a say in who is the head of state and the executive...moreover, I perfer that the two party system, forces during a primary, extremes from both sides out, and a compromise on a nominee before the general election Historically that has made for more moderation in a nominee that has to appeal across the spectrum, and ends up being the first choice, not the 3rd or 4th

 

[frigidweirdo]

Foreign influence is huge in the DNC....China, Iran, 1 percenters from around the world

And this after the Reps said it was nonsense about Russian interference for 4 years.

huh? I don't recall anyone saying the Russian didn't interfere....

What people said, at least people not falling for the Dems propaganda and parody, was that the Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative was a hoax. It was, as the numerous investigations have revealed.

You can stop deflecting though

Well, I'm not sure if I've heard anyone saying China isn't interfering either.

China IS interfering.

The reality is US freedom and "democracy" (whatever little democracy there actually is) is massively under threat, and the one thing people aren't talking about is how to stop this from happening. Everyone's too interested in slapping each ot her around the face with a wet fish. A dem fish and a rep fish.

And I thought you liked deflections.

cyber security and election security are two big ways to do with it. One party seems to oppose any sort of talk or move towards election security though

Because "election security" isn't the issue. It's just something the Republicans have invented to keep stupid people from the important issues.

elections are really a huge part of that democracy you said was under great threat....why don't you want to talk about it?

Have you seen the US elections lately? Only two parties will have any chance at winning seats in the House, Senate and winning the Presidency.

Like a tinpot dictatorship.

So much gerrymandering in House elections. Senate elections are inherently unfair as they give some people more power for their vote than others. And the presidential election is a joke with some states having loads of power and others none at all.

In Germany they vote FPTP and PR at the same time. With FPTP the CDU/CSU gained 36% of the vote and 77% of the seats. You think that's FAIR?

we’ve had a two party system since john adams nothing new. It’s actually a good thing in that in forces, or at least used to forced left learners and right leaners to compromise

gerrymandering has been around since we’ll forever too. it doesn’t impact democracy and in fact is done by the state legislature that has been elected

how does the senate do that? every voter has one vote for their senator

i don’t know if any state that has no power in. a presidential election...some states have more but that’s because more people live there

i don’t think you know what. democratic republic is

But they don't compromise. They compromise in GERMANY.

Yes, gerrymandering doesn't destroy democracy. It annihilates democracy. You tell everyone they have it, but the reality is they don't and everyone's so freaking ignorant of the fact.

sure they do...one one nominee from each party

i am not sure how that’s the case with gerrymandering. folks can vote out the people that draw the map or vote them in.

i certainly think gerrymandering can be so absurd that it does violate someones right and they can challenge that in court

Wow, it's Democracy, but you can only choose between one candidate from two parties.

In Hong Kong they had "democracy". You could vote for THREE Xi choices for leader of Hong Kong. Someone wrote "they wanted democracy, they got democracy".

I thought, that's ridiculous. Then I looked at US elections.


And you can't always vote out the people who draw the maps, if they draw them well enough.

no you can write in whoever you want, and people can get on the ballot with certain signatures or support. Each state has their own laws in that cut off

The Govt doesn’t pick the folks here...although the dem party is getting rely close, in particular in 2016, of picking the nominee abs taking it from the people

sure you can. The people that draw the maps for the House aren’t the people running for the house. The State legislature draws the maps

Well, most people don't choose. They could vote, but then again they're voting for who gets to take the truffles.

Most politicians are in it for the money, they get backing from someone who pays for their campaign and expects blowjobs in return.

I don't understand your first point

I agree with your second point

The first point is that FPTP benefits the larger parties and makes it easier for the rich to control politics.

Let's look at Germany's 2017 Federal election.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The CDU/CSU is the conservative party.

With FPTP they got 37.2% of the vote. They also got 231 seats from 299 seats, 77.25%

The FDP (center right party) got 7% of the vote with FPTP and zero seats.

So the CDU/CSU got five times the number of votes but the proportion of seats is massively out of whack.

The people didn't get to decide, the system decided who got seats and who didn't.

With PR, instead of 37.2% of the vote, the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, losing 4.2% of the vote.

Instead of 77.25% of the seats, they got 34.6% of the seats.

Meaning A) 4.2% of the voters felt they had to vote CDU/CSU with FPTP but didn't feel that need with PR and B) with PR what the voters wanted, the voters got, rather than people voting and then some random seat numbers coming up.

The FDP got 10.7% of the vote, and increase of 3.7% and 80 seats.

The people with PR choose. The people with FPTP don't choose, they just vote.

yeah but not one person got to vote for who would run their executive

Well, does it matter? Most people in the US have no idea what the role of the executive is.

They think the executive makes laws.

And again, does it matter? In the US people vote for the executive but their vote usually doesn't matter anyway. The choice is made for them. Vote ignored.

yes it matters it’s undemocratic not to be able to vote for a head of the executive

Oh, is it?

Then the US is undemocratic.

Take a person in California. They don't really have a vote for the President because the Democrats win every time there, more or less.

Even though California is THE LARGEST REPUBLICAN STATE with 6 million votes going to Trump, more than any other state, those 6 million people were effectively disenfranchised, ignored.

If there were PR, even if there were German style PR with a parliament and the leader of the country coming from the largest party, the Republicans in California would have actually had some input in who their leader was, but they didn't.

Not at all, the people vote in their states for who they want to be President.

In your beloved Germany, they don't get a voice at all

The major problem with Germany's paraliement system...and I'll quote ""Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." -- David Cameron.

or as Churchill said the election was determined ""determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

In Germany they are the ones who choose. In Germany they have a 5% cut off point, and they get 6 political parties which are viable to choose from.

Denmark has a 2% cut off point. They have 10 viable parties.

The US has two.

It's not hard to see who has the most choice.

Sure they get to vote for who is in paraliment...often getting stuck with everyones third or fourth pick...but tjhey don't get to pick who leads the executive.

It's a ok process, and more democratic then others....but it's ok. I prefer ours, in which we get a say in who is the head of state and the executive...moreover, I perfer that the two party system, forces during a primary, extremes from both sides out, and a compromise on a nominee before the general election Historically that has made for more moderation in a nominee that has to appeal across the spectrum, and ends up being the first choice, not the 3rd or 4th

Well they do.

In Germany there are usually three choices.

One is the traditional right party leading a coalition with another right wing party. So, CDU/CSU and the FDP.

Two is the traditional left party leading a coalition with another left wing party. So, the SPD with the Greens.

Three, the traditional right leading a coalition with the traditional left. Like the last two governments.

Not only that but politics moves much quicker. Trump was president. Then he wasn't. Not much change. Same with Obama. The executive isn't that strong in the US, mostly the US president is stronger in foreign affairs.

Same in Germany, the Bundestag is what makes the laws. The executive does what? Executes some of the laws. If they feel like it. In the US they don't feel like it because they don't like the laws. In Germany the executive is part of the law making process.

The simple fact is you got a choice of Trump or Biden. That's not a choice.

In Germany perhaps you might see it as they had a choice between Merkel and some SPD dude.

Two choices. Same thing.

Only in Germany everyone's vote counted. Yes, there's a 5% cut off point which is kind of high, like I mentioned with Denmark's 2% cut off point.

HOWEVER....

The UK has FPTP. They have a political party called UKIP (mostly RIP these days) which was anti-European, kind of Trumpish politics, the sort that doesn't really like reality too much.

They were founded in the 1990s. They worked their way through the political system and in 2015 they managed to get 12.6% of the vote. A really good result for them, their best (and will never get that ever again). They got ONE SEAT.

In Germany the AfD, kind of funny further right like UKIP, anti-EU, like a little bit of Trump. Founded in 2013. In 2017 they got 12.6% of the vote. It took them 4 years to get that. And they got 90 seats.

Do you see the difference.

In Germany with PR, if people see their traditional right or left party isn't doing what they like, they vote someone else. The AfD had a MASSIVE impact on German politics. Potentially Merkel is standing down because of them. The CDU/CSU knows it needs to change its politics to stay relevant, or the AfD will make them irrelevant.

In the UK the Tories are like "ah, they won't do well", because UKIP can get 12.6% of the vote, but they can't get enough votes in one constituency in order to win enough seats. So, 12.6% of the country said they wanted UKIP (or didn't like what the Tories were doing) and the Tories don't care too much because... hey, they're never going to win much.

That has an impact on the legislature AND the executive.

In the US, Trump comes in, who cares. Entertaining for a few years, annoying for a few years, out, and the system is the same, politics is the same, nothing much changed (at least for the good).