Who Here Has Had Enough of the Two Party System?

[Stryder50]

still an issue with that. there shouldn't be districts. Candidates represent the state, not the district, how can one district matter more than another so as to remove representation?

What about state, county, local/city government ?

 

[gipper]

You know what it means to complain about the status quo yet have no real, workable, alternative ???

Anarchy is a workable alternative. You just know nothing about it, other than what statists have told you.

 

[pknopp]

What do you consider to be the right things ?

1. Paying our debts.

2. Not fighting other people's wars.

3. No ignoring people's constitutional rights.

Thats a start.

 

[Stryder50]

Anarchy is a workable alternative. You just know nothing about it, other than what statists have told you.

Anarchy is mob rule by the most violent and effective gangs, Lots of violence and destruction.
You really are an idiot, or a troll.

 

[pknopp]

Anarchy is mob rule by the most violent and effective gangs, Lots of violence and destruction.
You really are an idiot, or a troll.

Anarchy isnt about violence. Its about "leave me alone and ill leave you alone".

Now if you cant leave others alone, only then is violence an option.

 

[dblack]

How's that working for ya?

Still lots of people voting for shit. We may be beyond recovery.

 

[Mac-7]

GIGO

Using the census and GPS we can pinpoint to the foot where the densest population is

That would be District 1 and work out from there till all the districts are identified

There would be no gerrymandering at all

Or political bias

 

[Mac-7]

still an issue with that. there shouldn't be districts. Candidates represent the state, not the district, how can one district matter more than another so as to remove representation?

Senators represent the voters at large

Districts hold candidates for the needs of the people on that district

 

[gipper]

Anarchy is mob rule by the most violent and effective gangs, Lots of violence and destruction.
You really are an idiot, or a troll.

See? You know nothing about anarchy.

Get informed. He can help.

 

[Stryder50]

Anarchy isnt about violence. Its about "leave me alone and ill leave you alone".

Now if you cant leave others alone, only then is violence an option.

Bullshit !
It's a sanction for violence with no consequence if the victim is weaker than you.
Only idiots or criminally inclined would want to see anarchy.

 

[Stryder50]

Using the census and GPS we can pinpoint to the foot where the densest population is

That would be District 1 and work out from there till all the districts are identified

There would be no gerrymandering at all

Or political bias

My County has a charter that requires review ever ten years, which is occurring now.
This is also when Precinct boundaries within Districts of the County are done.
This is by a bi-partisan committee and they seek to balance the same number, as close as possible, within as symmetrical a shape as possible.
The County is also divided into five Districts which currently remain relatively fixed boundaries. Some Precincts will place partially within one District and also another.

Gerrymandering can be a subjective term the way some people apply it.
...
Gerrymandering, (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/ JERR-ee-man-dər-ing, originally /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/ GHERR-ee-man-dər-ing)<a href="Gerrymandering - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a><a href="Gerrymandering - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> defined in the contexts of representative electoral systems, is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries to advantage a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency.
....

Boundaries drawn to apportion five "districts" result in varying color majorities, including no yellow and 5 blue (top left), 3 yellow and 2 blue (top right), and 2 yellow and 3 blue (lower examples matching "voter" proportions).

Gerrymandering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

See? You know nothing about anarchy.

Get informed. He can help.

....
Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralized polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy. While viewed positively by anarchists, the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of statism, who see it in terms of social disorder.
....
While anarchy specifically represents a society without rulers, it can more generally refer to a stateless society, or a society without government. Anarchy is thus defined in direct contrast to the State, an institution that claims a monopoly on violence over a given territory. Anarchists such as Errico Malatesta have also defined anarchy more precisely as a society without authority, or hierarchy.

Anarchy is often defined synonymously as chaos or social disorder, reflecting the state of nature as depicted by Thomas Hobbes. By this definition, anarchy represents not only an absence of government but also an absence of governance. This connection of anarchy with chaos usually assumes that, without government, no means of governance exist and thus that disorder is an unavoidable outcome of anarchy. Sociologist Francis Dupuis-Déri has described chaos as a "degenerate form of anarchy", in which there is an absence, not just of rulers, but of any kind of political organization. He contrasts the "rule of all" under anarchy with the "rule of none" under chaos.

Since its conception, anarchy has been used in both a positive and negative sense, respectively describing a free society without coercion or a state of chaos.
...

Anarchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MarcATL]

The biggest problem w/our political system today is that the Democrats are too much like Republicans.

We need to replace them w/actual Democrats. No more DINOs.

 

[sartre play]

I was fed up with the two party system before it was cool to be fed up with the two party system...

I was a slow learner, the two party system as it exists works for its self,
Few country over party, politicians still work for us. Allowing Money to rule worse now, but always a problem.

 

[sartre play]

An independent can run as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, or any other of our dozen party system

Trump is as INDEPENDENT as any president we've ever had

Not sure i get it? Independent in Only? what he (one person) wants is good for the whole country?

 

[sartre play]

At least you're frank enough to admit it "douchebag"

Point is, we have no ******* idea what "system" you claim is broken and needs to be fixed. Nothing in our electoral system dictates two parties

No one person or one party has all the answers. That is why we have party's.
We just don't require them to try & be honest. The best bull sh$$er usually wins.

 

[dblack]

The biggest problem w/our political system today is that the Democrats are too much like Republicans.

In as much as they both suck, yeah.

We need to replace them w/actual Democrats. No more DINOs.

If you're thinking that more progressive/socialist stuff is the answer, that won't reduce the suckage. You need to nominate better candidates. Biden? Harris? Your system is fucked.

 

[sartre play]

It's our system. It's a political process that has been going on for more than a century. What you are dreaming about is a freaking miracle that ain't gonna happen. Get off your ass and make the democrat party better or lose your mental TDS illness.

OK, But what makes you believe that Only one party has All the answers?
Haven't they all made some big mistakes?

 

[sartre play]

I don't get what part needs explaining?

1. 1 party system is just autocracy.
2. 2 party system offers best chance of choice and opposition.
3. 3 or more party system offers hopeless convolution with no one party getting enough of the vote and we could end up with "winners" most people do not like.

So 2 parties offers the best compromise, just so long as there is good choices and real choices. No matter what your views, if they are popular enough, they should find somewhere to fit within an honest 2 party system.

Popularity is not enough,
Personality should not be better than working with others for solutions that work for the many.
Not just a temporary popular state of mind.

 

[MarcATL]

In as much as they both suck, yeah.

If you're thinking that more progressive/socialist stuff is the answer, that won't reduce the suckage. You need to nominate better candidates. Biden? Harris? Your system is fucked.

There's no such thing as "socialist stuff" here in America.

It's been more far rightwing policies introduced by both parties for generations.