What do we have to do to get our country on the right track?

[MarathonMike]

"I know that social media shows us the worst of humanity, and a few people celebrating a death will get more attention than hundreds of respectful people," Schwarzenegger continued. "Don’t let these companies and the rage influencers that profit from them convince you the worst of us are the most of us.

I agree. We could with a lot more communication and a lot less
"See? This what all of YOU are like!!!"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well, if you knew anything about PR then you'd be more knowledgeable and you'd be able to understand.

Let me explain, but I guess I'm going to have to do this quite simply, so I'll use the German federal elections because they use FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the 2017 election.

The CDU/CSU got 37.27% of the vote with FPTP. They got 231 seats out of 299 seats available. Which is 77.25% of the seats.

The SPD got 24.64% of the votes and 59 seats, or 19.7%.

The AfD got 12.64% of the vote and 3 seats, or 1%

The FDP got 7% and zero seats, or 0%

The Left got 8.55% of the vote and 5 seats, 1.64%

The Greens got 8.01% of the vote and 1 seat, or 0.33%

So, The CDU/CSU got nearly three times the number of seats they should have had.
The SPD got 5% less, the AFD got 11% less, the FDP got nothing, even though 7% of the country gave them votes. The Left and the Greens also lost out.

With PR it was totally different.

The CDU/CSU got 32.93% of the vote. They lost more than 4% of the vote. Meaning that on the same day, at the same time with the same voters, 4% of people, meaning about 203,000 people, decided to change their vote.

FPTP forced them to vote for a larger party, when really they wanted to vote for someone else.

The CDU/CSU ended up with 246 seats out of 709. That's 34.7% of the seats.

The other parties all did better because the electoral system says that whatever your vote is, your seat allocation is going to be similar to that.

With FPTP a third party vote is wasted because only the two main parties are going to have a say most of the time.

With PR it's totally different.

The FDP, a total waste of a vote with FPTP, got 10.75% of the vote, up from 7%, so clearly 3.75% of the electorate thought it wasn't a wasted vote with PR when it was with FPTP, and they got 80 seats.

After the results came in Angela Merkel tried to form a "Jamaica coalition", which is CDU/CSU, FDP and Greens, it didn't work out, so it went for a "grand coalition" of the CDU/CSU.

However you still get represented in parliament, government has to be more conscious of the people.

The biggest difference is that in 2015 in the UK (with FPTP) UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat, the AfD in 2017 in Germany (with PR) got 12.6% of the vote and 94 seats.

So, the CDU/CSU were punished and had to change their attitude.

In the UK the Tories didn't feel that much heat, except that in some seats they lost MPs (but still won the election).

PR allows people to punish. FPTP doesn't.

Every Party Allows Us to Become Caterers

If you can't vote on issues through initiative and referendum, you don't have any meaningful vote at all. You have a forced choice among pre-owned candidates, who will make all your political decisions for you. So "voting," like most Postmodern English words, doesn't mean what the Language Lords are paid to tell us what it means.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The minute the Progs come to power again, you will be calling for the extermination of Christians.

Where would Jesus stand on the migrants on our border.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Every Party Allows Us to Become Caterers

If you can't vote on issues through initiative and referendum, you don't have any meaningful vote at all. You have a forced choice among pre-owned candidates, who will make all your political decisions for you. So "voting," like most Postmodern English words, doesn't mean what the Language Lords are paid to tell us what it means.

Yeah, it's like in Hong Kong, they get a vote, but whoever wins will be a Beijing pick.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Who is "we".

Literally anyone to the right of them ot doesn’t automatically agree, that includes you.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Literally anyone to the right of them ot doesn’t automatically agree, that includes you.

Your world is made up of "we" and "them". That sounds like a reasonable definition of the world. Why make it complicated. You consider all of the "we's" exactly alike and all of "them's" exactly alike.

 

[Hafar1014]

Trump is busy fighting for the paedo elites right to **** little girls.

We are on the right track and in big way. The crazy left tried to kill Trump and gave him the election. They killed Kirk and conservatism got huge boost. What will their next act of violent stupidity be. Defending violent criminals. Oh they already do that.

 

[kyzr]

Well, if you knew anything about PR then you'd be more knowledgeable and you'd be able to understand.

Let me explain, but I guess I'm going to have to do this quite simply, so I'll use the German federal elections because they use FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the 2017 election.

The CDU/CSU got 37.27% of the vote with FPTP. They got 231 seats out of 299 seats available. Which is 77.25% of the seats.

The SPD got 24.64% of the votes and 59 seats, or 19.7%.

The AfD got 12.64% of the vote and 3 seats, or 1%

The FDP got 7% and zero seats, or 0%

The Left got 8.55% of the vote and 5 seats, 1.64%

The Greens got 8.01% of the vote and 1 seat, or 0.33%

So, The CDU/CSU got nearly three times the number of seats they should have had.
The SPD got 5% less, the AFD got 11% less, the FDP got nothing, even though 7% of the country gave them votes. The Left and the Greens also lost out.

With PR it was totally different.

The CDU/CSU got 32.93% of the vote. They lost more than 4% of the vote. Meaning that on the same day, at the same time with the same voters, 4% of people, meaning about 203,000 people, decided to change their vote.

FPTP forced them to vote for a larger party, when really they wanted to vote for someone else.

The CDU/CSU ended up with 246 seats out of 709. That's 34.7% of the seats.

The other parties all did better because the electoral system says that whatever your vote is, your seat allocation is going to be similar to that.

With FPTP a third party vote is wasted because only the two main parties are going to have a say most of the time.

With PR it's totally different.

The FDP, a total waste of a vote with FPTP, got 10.75% of the vote, up from 7%, so clearly 3.75% of the electorate thought it wasn't a wasted vote with PR when it was with FPTP, and they got 80 seats.

After the results came in Angela Merkel tried to form a "Jamaica coalition", which is CDU/CSU, FDP and Greens, it didn't work out, so it went for a "grand coalition" of the CDU/CSU.

However you still get represented in parliament, government has to be more conscious of the people.

The biggest difference is that in 2015 in the UK (with FPTP) UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat, the AfD in 2017 in Germany (with PR) got 12.6% of the vote and 94 seats.

So, the CDU/CSU were punished and had to change their attitude.

In the UK the Tories didn't feel that much heat, except that in some seats they lost MPs (but still won the election).

PR allows people to punish. FPTP doesn't.

I'll take our two party system, thank you very much for the explanation.

 

[22lcidw]

Where would Jesus stand on the migrants on our border.

The real question is, what would people do if the economic system craters and all the checks are cut in half, if that? It is easier to speak nice soliloquies when life has comforts. Progressive leaders show no agendas for themselves to live as the peasants in a socialist mecca. And frankly, many governments in our nation can keep running within a certain competence. We do however have many people in power that are not very good. Senator sanders is a communist with three mansions. There are thousands and thousands of Progressives who have power of some type who live the same way. Today, the owners of the Federal Reserve can at any time put the planet in a brutal depression. They own other currencies of the world also. You see, what you do not account for is with Jesus that he comes with some rules. It is not 100% carte blanche doing what you want without consequences.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The real question is, what would people do if the economic system craters and all the checks are cut in half, if that? It is easier to speak nice soliloquies when life has comforts. Progressive leaders show no agendas for themselves to live as the peasants in a socialist mecca. And frankly, many governments in our nation can keep running within a certain competence. We do however have many people in power that are not very good. Senator sanders is a communist with three mansions. There are thousands and thousands of Progressives who have power of some type who live the same way. Today, the owners of the Federal Reserve can at any time put the planet in a brutal depression. They own other currencies of the world also. You see, what you do not account for is with Jesus that he comes with some rules. It is not 100% carte blanche doing what you want without consequences.

Do you feel there are consequences of not following the teachings of Jesus. Jesus's actions are the ultimate example of his teachings. I repeat, what would Jesus be doing concerning the people at the US border.
Do you feel government and the economic system are more important than the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not a real fan of the money changers.

 

[22lcidw]

Do you feel there are consequences of not following the teachings of Jesus. Jesus's actions are the ultimate example of his teachings. I repeat, what would Jesus be doing concerning the people at the US border.
Do you feel government and the economic system are more important than the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not a real fan of the money changers.

The people would need to live at the level of all others with economics divided evenly. That means a down grade for most Americans. And the elimination of abusing the welfare system with it. Jimmy Kimmel would go home to his two-bedroom apartment after work with his salary cut 99% in that system.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Your world is made up of "we" and "them". That sounds like a reasonable definition of the world. Why make it complicated. You consider all of the "we's" exactly alike and all of "them's" exactly alike.

We all have a common threat, them.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The people would need to live at the level of all others with economics divided evenly. That means a down grade for most Americans. And the elimination of abusing the welfare system with it. Jimmy Kimmel would go home to his two-bedroom apartment after work with his salary cut 99% in that system.

You did not address my questions. Why are you deflecting from my questions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'll take our two party system, thank you very much for the explanation.

Why? Because you like not having aa vote that counts much? Because you like not having much choice, because it would involve too much thinking to have to consider multiple parties? Because you like the politics of "I know who my enemy is, and I can spend all day attacking them, instead of actually having to consider real politics"? Or, "I like seeing my country die"?

 

[Dekster]

What do we have to do to get our country on the right track?
View attachment 1162802

Shut it down. Schumer will be doing his patriotic duty here directly.

 

[kyzr]

Why? Because you like not having aa vote that counts much? Because you like not having much choice, because it would involve too much thinking to have to consider multiple parties? Because you like the politics of "I know who my enemy is, and I can spend all day attacking them, instead of actually having to consider real politics"? Or, "I like seeing my country die"?

No, because I like the current two party system. The battle lines are clearly drawn.
We don't need to form alliances and make deals and compromise with added complexity with no better governance.

My country is very alive thank you. Its the EU countries that are gridlocked by politics.

 

[PeterPilot]

No, because I like the current two party system. The battle lines are clearly drawn.
We don't need to form alliances and make deals and compromise with added complexity with no better governance.

My country is very alive thank you. Its the EU countries that are gridlocked by politics.

Your country is alive, but its government is controlled by a foreign country and special interests.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Your country is alive, but its government is controlled by a foreign country and special interests.

Israel.

 

[kyzr]

Your country is alive, but its government is controlled by a foreign country and special interests.

"Controlled" is too strong a word.
"Influenced" is closer to the truth.
Unless you believe that those "foreign interests" elected Trump?????
"Special interests" covers a lot of ground, Zuckerbucks, Elon's help, Soros, and corporate money, not all of it goes to one party.
Kamala had $3.5b compared to Trump's $1.5b, and we know what happened.
If your team wins, you get the spoils, if not tough luck.

 

[Rogue AI]

tell the far right and left, the party die hards to take a hike.....let them start their own party,they are a lot a like....

What 'far right'? Who are these people you speak of? That sounds like a bit of a cop out. Where on the right are the fringe elements given a voice? Nowhere. Flip that script and you can see every fringe leftist is given a voice, from militant queers, communists, and socialists. The problem is the radical left, nobody else.