I'm not sure what "Problem" You're referring to. I don't see any problem with the american system of government, therefore arbitrarily reorganizing the states seems like a waste of time and resources.

The problem is, that minorities are disproportionately represented, which is undemocratic. And unintentional gerrymandering are bound to happen since there's less groups for each state. For example, in the 2014 Representative House elections, Libertarians won 1.2% vote, while Greens won 0.3%. In a fully democratic system, this would mean that Libertarians would have 5 seats and the Greens 1. Both got 0.

It's just not democratic.

There is nothing to be said about "Poor demography". People have the freedom to live where they choose, and that is a freedom that must be maintained.

I'm not saying to take away any freedoms. They're still folk, and their vote will count equally wherever they go - as opposed to what you want, unequal voting powers. If anyone, you want to curb freedom of movement.

If democracy existed, everyone does not get a say. People who form a majority get a say, and nobody else. If you are part of a majority, your opinion will always be heard, and if you are a part of a minority, your opinion will never be heard. Relying on majorities is a poor way to govern, and it's frankly just ethically unjustifiable.

A dictatorship is Pretty much the same, just swap the words "Majority" and "Minority". However, it is essentially worse than a democracy since it is impossible to advance politically, even if you do gather majority support from the populace.

Democracy insures that the least amount of folk will have their opinions not heeded, and politic gridlocks that require more than a 50% agreement supporting making compromises, having both opinions heeded.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by that, with dictatorship. Dictatorships can very much advance politically, better than democracies can. There's no need for elections or that hassle, and there's no need for debates and that, too - what you say is what goes.

American republicanism essentially gives any person a chance to be in power if they can come up with a coherent strategy to do so, rather than only giving government positions to people who can appeal to majorities. For example, by appealing to just the right people, it is possible to become president with only something like 20% of the vote nationwide. See this for reference:

So instead of someone folk like, just any monkey? That's just taking the worst of both worlds - of dictatorship (disagreeing with more folk than agreeing) - and of democracy (having unqualified monkeys running the country based on photogeny and money). I can not see grounds for supporting American gerrymandering.

On the flipside, if you have majority support from the general population, it's fairly easy to use this to your advantage to get into government. This means that you can end up with minority and majority governments, and that is more fair and moral than either a majority or a minority having all the say.

It's unfair to the folk. Folk will have different opinions on things, and some things, they'll get their way, others not. If the majority does bad things, then less folk will support the majority, and there will be a new majority, which will always agree with more than half of folk.

And what ends up happening is some folk have thousands times more voting power than others. And geographically, what happens in most elections with like systems is that mainstream parties always have the majority in all the subgovernments, but meantime minorities such as UKIP are under-represented.

The principle of democracy is to fire fellows who are doing bad policies, while the principle of dictatorship is to get experienced fellows. This has neither, just taking the worst of both.

The problem is, that minorities are disproportionately represented, which is undemocratic. And unintentional gerrymandering are bound to happen since there's less groups for each state. For example, in the 2014 Representative House elections, Libertarians won 1.2% vote, while Greens won 0.3%. In a fully democratic system, this would mean that Libertarians would have 5 seats and the Greens 1. Both got 0.

It's just not democratic.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do Libertarians and greens (Both very much minorities) have too much power as you were previously arguing, or are you now magically taking my side and agreeing that america needs to be less democratic?

Democracy insures that the least amount of folk will have their opinions not heeded, and politic gridlocks that require more than a 50% agreement supporting making compromises, having both opinions heeded.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by that, with dictatorship. Dictatorships can very much advance politically, better than democracies can. There's no need for elections or that hassle, and there's no need for debates and that, too - what you say is what goes.

In democracy, there is no compromise since the majority can simply push through whatever they want. It actually really discourages compromise.

In democracy less people will be dissatisfied, which is why it is more moral than dictatorship. However, a republic like the one in the united states ensures that both majorities and minorities can be in power with an edge too the majority, but with frequent elections (in fact, every two years national elections are held) to allow no one group to hold power for too long. What this means is that while one of the groups will always be dissatisfied, they have a chance to become satisfied at the next election, and every voice is heard.

It's unfair to the folk. Folk will have different opinions on things, and some things, they'll get their way, others not. If the majority does bad things, then less folk will support the majority, and there will be a new majority, which will always agree with more than half of folk.

It doesn't matter how many people support the majority, since their power is self contained.

Edited 4/13/2016 23:54:14

Whatever, this isn't even my main point - my main point is, that unified stances should be taken on things that need unified stances. What good is it if one state bans abortion, if you can just get an abortion in another? Same with drugs, and probably most stances that we'd talk about here.

And also, you don't seem to be disagreeing with recutting the states, so just do that, there'll be less of a problem.

Edited 4/14/2016 00:20:44

Keep in mind the senate exists from a time in which people didn't call themselves Americans, but Pennsylvanians, New-Yorkers... and Small states needed equal representation.

Federations are much more effective for diverse countries like the United states; It's impossible to impose a "Unified Stance" if there is no unified stance among 350 million people, Which unsurprisingly, there rarely is.

You're actually looking at it backwards. If one state bans abortion and someone disagrees with this, they're welcome to go to another state and get one. This is not a bad thing, it's actually really convenient for stuff like gambling and alcohol.

And to reiterate: No, I am not willing to add in any sort of reorganization of states.

Edited 4/14/2016 00:36:02

Keep in mind the senate exists from a time in which people didn't call themselves Americans, but Pennsylvanians, New-Yorkers... and Small states needed equal representation.

Yeah, then it makes more sense, but that's not really today (as far as I know).

Federations are much more effective for diverse countries like the United states; It's impossible to impose a "Unified Stance" if there is no unified stance among 350 million people, Which unsurprisingly, there rarely is.

It's impossible to do an unified stance on such a controversial top amongst 1,000; some folk are going to disagree. But a united answer has to be made, otherwise everything's automatically legal once 1 state out of 50 chooses to legalise it, including abortion.

It's impossible to do an unified stance on such a controversial top amongst 1,000; some folk are going to disagree. But a united answer has to be made, otherwise everything's automatically legal once 1 state out of 50 chooses to legalise it, including abortion.

Not sure what you're getting at here really. But, that's actually my point; Things shouldn't be legalized in 50 different jurisdictions just because the federal government legalizes it.

But, that's actually my point; Things shouldn't be legalized in 50 different jurisdictions just because the federal government legalizes it.

My point is, illegalising something doesn't matter as long as one state does legalise it.

So what? People just move to that state, and the state that doesn't want it doesn't have it.

Yes, it does matter. Simply because someone can do something by going to another state doesn't mean that they will.

Furthermore, the idea isn't to stop abortions from happening. Obviously even if it is illegal everywhere people will get illegal abortions if they want them. Rather, the purpose of enacting a ban is to make a statement that your state does not approve of this practice, and therefore to encourage other states to enact similar bans, and to encourage people to not get any abortions, legal or not.

If the law is "It is not okay to get an abortion", this tells people that abortion is not okay, compared to "Well abortion is legal somewhere else, so you may as well get abortions", which sends the message that the government doesn't care much about the issue, which is obviously not the case.

Edited 4/14/2016 01:50:22

!

So what? People just move to that state, and the state that doesn't want it doesn't have it.

So what's the point of any state illegalising anything if one state legalises it?

Furthermore, the idea isn't to stop abortions from happening. Obviously even if it is illegal everywhere people will get illegal abortions if they want them. Rather, the purpose of enacting a ban is to make a statement that your state does not approve of this practice, and therefore to encourage other states to enact similar bans, and to encourage people to not get any abortions, legal or not.

The point of law is not to make a statement that the government does not approve, the point of law is to discourage something from happening by giving some aforesaid punishment. You can run public advertisement campaigns to convince folk to not do something legal, but that's not what law is. And this seems to me like one of those reverse psychology things where folk will be more likely to get an abortion since one government is banning it, especially since it's fully legal next door.

If the law is "It is not okay to get an abortion", this tells people that abortion is not okay compared to "Well abortion is legal somewhere else, so you may as well get abortions", which sends the message that the government doesn't care much about the issue, which is obviously not the case.

I'm not saying that everything should be legalised once every state is, but I'm saying it might as well be, with this system here. I am just for an united stand for things that would hurt without one.

The point of law is not to make a statement that the government does not approve, the point of law is to discourage something from happening by giving some aforesaid punishment.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Punishing people for doing something inside of your borders is a pretty strong statement that you disapprove of it.

I'm not saying that everything should be legalised once every state is, but I'm saying it might as well be, with this system here. I am just for an united stand for things that would hurt without one.

Yes, you kind of are with your "United Stance" Nonsense.

Your united stand idea, besides being more of a "stick it to 50% of people stance", is counterproductive, and it frankly just serves to cause animosity like what is caused in Democracies, which you also seem to cherish so much. Forcing your opinion 350 million people who don't agree with you is a terrible idea, and it is literally the definition of oppression. Allowing states to take individual stances essentially makes it legal for those who want it legal (They can travel to another state), and illegal for those who don't want it to be legal.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Punishing people for doing something inside of your borders is a pretty strong statement that you disapprove of it.

You're right, but the point of law is, I guess, more than what you are saying.

Forcing your opinion 350 million people who don't agree with you is a terrible idea, and it is literally the definition of oppression. Allowing states to take individual stances essentially makes it legal for those who want it legal (They can travel to another state), and illegal for those who don't want it to be legal.

First, America doesn't have 350 million folk. It has about 322 million, it doesn't even round to 350 million. Second, you'd be more for oppression for me, seeing as how you favour disproportionate representation which burdens more folk than just the minority. Third, under most modern democracies, nothing could burden more than half of those.

Allowing states to take individual stances means that if one state legalises it, it's legal for everyone, since they can just go to that state, not to say about giving disproportionate representation (seriously, recutting the states would solve that problem). I'm for unitship, where everyone chooses on their own, but confederacy is a far inferiour version of that - what you can do is still determined by millions of other folk, and burden millions.

You say this allows minority governments, but it doesn't. Despite getting a significant popular vote rate in several elections, the Libertarian and Green groups still are not represented at all, due to this system.

Ah, found a good phrase to describe this: law of the minimum.

Edited 4/14/2016 02:59:38

First, America doesn't have 350 million folk. It has about 322 million, it doesn't even round to 350 million. Second, you'd be more for oppression for me, seeing as how you favour disproportionate representation which burdens more folk than just the minority. Third, under most modern democracies, nothing could burden more than half of those.

I was just recalling off of the top of my head. Simply replace 350 million with 322 million when reading, it doesn't change the content of any of my previous posts.

I favor a compromise legislature, which includes both a proportional house and an equal house. both are valid ideas.

I don't favor oppression, you are the one who is arguing for less states right and more democracy. I support liberty through a federation and a weak central government, while you support mob rule through a unitary democracy with no military.

Allowing states to take individual stances means that if one state legalises it, it's legal for everyone, since they can just go to that state, not to say about giving disproportionate representation (seriously, recutting the states would solve that problem). I'm for unitship, where everyone chooses on their own, but confederacy is a far inferiour version of that - what you can do is still determined by millions of other folk, and burden millions.

Democracy is not "Everyone choosing on their own". It is one group dictating how stuff works for everyone, ie an oppressive and immoral government. I will grant you that it is less immoral than a dictatorship, but only because the group dictating the laws for everyone is larger in a democracy.

Also, one state legalizing it is not "Legalizing it for everyone"; It is legalizing it for everyone if a very specific condition is met, that is that they travel to a special location that is outside of the jurisdiction in which it is illegal and have it performed there.

You say this allows minority governments, but it doesn't. Despite getting a significant popular vote rate in several elections, the Libertarian and Green groups still are not represented at all, due to this system.

Believe me, there are plenty of greens in the democratic party, as well as many libertarians in the republican party; In fact, one of the latter ran for president this year (his name is rand paul), and even though he's since dropped out, there are still plenty of Libertarian republicans in elected offices.

It's not so much that the system doesn't allow for minorities to be represented, but rather third parties don't get representation. Honestly, I'm not convinced that it's the system that results in this either, but rather just the perception of a two-party system in the mind of the public. In fact, this isn't even unique to america; Many nations around the world with much different government structures from the US have two-party systems.

What you end up with is not a system dominated by two ideologies, but rather two parties that are very diverse, only organized by being "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing".

I don't favor oppression, you are the one who is arguing for less states right and more democracy. I support liberty through a federation and a weak central government, while you support mob rule through a unitary democracy with no military.

As you said, "Forcing your opinion to people who don't agree with you is a terrible idea, and it is literally the definition of oppression.". And you are for disproportionately high minority rule, which is more oppression. I support direct democracy with a weak and cheap government, and I never send I wanted to wholly disband the military force, I specifically said I didn't want to several times.

I am for either democracy, either dictatorship. Both have their good sides and bad sides, but you can't be in the middle, that's just bringing out both bad sides. And I reckon democracy in the end is ultimately better, and that's what the USA was supposed to be founded on, wouldn't want to spit on that. I am for burdening the least amount of folk, and it's not consistently going to be the same folk burdened, while you are giving some kind of politic welfare here and making sure both folk are burdened through an artificial, undemocratic process.

I am also for a small government, smaller than yours, perhaps, but federal policies on things that need an united stand, and confederal policies for stuff like how much should taxes account for police? That can be, and should be, in my opinion, chosen at a local level based on local-specific crime rates, though disproportionate states are not the way to do this, either.

Democracy is not "Everyone choosing on their own". It is one group dictating how stuff works for everyone, ie an oppressive and immoral government. I will grant you that it is less immoral than a dictatorship, but only because the group dictating the laws for everyone is larger in a democracy.

That's how most republics work, more or less, but I am more for direct democracy, like Switzerland, in which makes sure than in every choice to be made, the choice disagrees with the least amount of folk. The group won't keep oppressing and dictating if it's bad - that's the greatness of democracy, they get unpopular, they get outed.

Also, one state legalizing it is not "Legalizing it for everyone"; It is legalizing it for everyone if a very specific condition is met, that is that they travel to a special location that is outside of the jurisdiction in which it is illegal and have it performed there.

That's hardly an obstacle, it is just as good as legalising it for everyone. I know that in particular, states that legalised drugs are being very annoying to their neighbours in America, for trans-state drug trafficking. It's a total law of the minimum, here.

Believe me, there are plenty of greens in the democratic party, as well as many libertarians in the republican party; In fact, one of the latter ran for president this year (his name is rand paul), and even though he's since dropped out, there are still plenty of Libertarian republicans in elected offices.

Don't kid, in order to be eligible for the Republican and Democratic group, you need to follow the majority of their policies. That's like saying the Soviet Communist group was capitalist since one capitalist did manage to get in.

Also, Rand Paul was my most liked (actual) candidate, but even being Republican, he'd no chance.

It's not so much that the system doesn't allow for minorities to be represented, but rather third parties don't get representation. Honestly, I'm not convinced that it's the system that results in this either, but rather just the perception of a two-party system in the mind of the public. In fact, this isn't even unique to america; Many nations around the world with much different government structures from the US have two-party systems.

It's brought about by several problems, one of which is the government-influenced public opinion, but another in which even if they get enough popular vote to get in, they're still not put in any seat of power, like in the Representative House elections.

Also, obviously, America could have less politic groups, and a throng of countries do have less. That doesn't make it any better, and most countries that have at least 2 ruling groups, have more than 2 groups in totality, but they're small in contrast, but still big enough to get represented in power, like 1/100, that's not going too much good, but it's better than 0/100.

What you end up with is not a system dominated by two ideologies, but rather two parties that are very diverse, only organized by being "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing".

No, there's probably official match requirements that are supposed to be met, but you'll see that Sanders and Clinton share 80% of their policies, and the Republicans do, too. And this would be more of an argument if these were specifically umbrella groups, but they're not. If things were really as you said they were, why do you think there are independent and third groups running in the first site?

As you said, "Forcing your opinion to people who don't agree with you is a terrible idea, and it is literally the definition of oppression.". And you are for disproportionately high minority rule, which is more oppression. I support direct democracy with a weak and cheap government, and I never send I wanted to wholly disband the military force, I specifically said I didn't want to several times.

I stand by my statement.

I am for either democracy, either dictatorship. Both have their good sides and bad sides, but you can't be in the middle, that's just bringing out both bad sides. And I reckon democracy in the end is ultimately better, and that's what the USA was supposed to be founded on, wouldn't want to spit on that. I am for burdening the least amount of folk, and it's not consistently going to be the same folk burdened, while you are giving some kind of politic welfare here and making sure both folk are burdened through an artificial, undemocratic process.

America was specifically founded on the basis of not having a democracy for the reasons I've outlined. If you want proof, look to undemocratic institutions which have been intentionally placed into the system ie, the electoral college, senate and delegation of power to states as some examples. However, you don't even have to look at the facts. Check out some quotes from the founding fathers on the matter:

James Madison:

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Thomas Jefferson:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

John Adams:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

I am also for a small government, smaller than yours, perhaps, but federal policies on things that need an united stand, and confederal policies for stuff like how much should taxes account for police? That can be, and should be, in my opinion, chosen at a local level based on local-specific crime rates, though disproportionate states are not the way to do this, either.

The aim is not to have the smallest government possible, but rather to have the government that provides the most liberty. Obviously it makes the government smaller to get rid of state governments, but this would severely weaken the liberty that people enjoy currently.

That's how most republics work, more or less, but I am more for direct democracy, like Switzerland, in which makes sure than in every choice to be made, the choice disagrees with the least amount of folk. The group won't keep oppressing and dictating if it's bad - that's the greatness of democracy, they get unpopular, they get outed.

Switzerland does not have democracy except for some small local governments, otherwise they have a national council very similar to the the united states congress. In fact, their official name is the "Swiss Confederation". I believe they delegate power based on linguistic groups, although I'm not too sure.

That's hardly an obstacle, it is just as good as legalising it for everyone. I know that in particular, states that legalised drugs are being very annoying to their neighbours in America, for trans-state drug trafficking. It's a total law of the minimum, here.

It's not a matter of being an obstacle. If something is officially not permitted except for in very specific circumstances, it is very different from the practice being legal everywhere, since as I said it practically allows both sides of the issue the freedom to have their opinions respected.

Don't kid, in order to be eligible for the Republican and Democratic group, you need to follow the majority of their policies. That's like saying the Soviet Communist group was capitalist since one capitalist did manage to get in.

Also, Rand Paul was my most liked (actual) candidate, but even being Republican, he'd no chance.

I'm not kidding; There is literally no uniting issue in either party besides the General right-left divide, which tends to be over pretty minor issues in america.

Right now the divide is pretty much over economic issues, whether to support Economic Liberalism (right) or a more planned economy with more welfare (left). However, outside of this right-left divide of pretty much welfare, There isn't much consensus in either party on any major issue, be it Gay Marriage, Abortion, Taxation, Gun Control, or any other issue you can name.

It's brought about by several problems, one of which is the government-influenced public opinion, but another in which even if they get enough popular vote to get in, they're still not put in any seat of power, like in the Representative House elections.

Also, obviously, America could have less politic groups, and a throng of countries do have less. That doesn't make it any better, and most countries that have at least 2 ruling groups, have more than 2 groups in totality, but they're small in contrast, but still big enough to get represented in power, like 1/100, that's not going too much good, but it's better than 0/100.

Some two party systems do have more than two parties, it's true. However, in most cases it's something like the in britain, where They have a right wing party and a left wing party holding 90% of the seats, and then a bunch of left wing parties holding like one seat each (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom). This doesn't really entail any more variety in the system, ad it's pretty much the same deal here in america; It's just that all those left wing parties are also part of the democratic party.

No, there's probably official match requirements that are supposed to be met, but you'll see that Sanders and Clinton share 80% of their policies, and the Republicans do, too. And this would be more of an argument if these were specifically umbrella groups, but they're not. If things were really as you said they were, why do you think there are independent and third groups running in the first site?

In most cases, third parties aren't even on the ballot, and are pretty much just people who want to be unique and not part of the "Big two". For example:

1. The Libertarian party only had ballot access in 34 states at the 2014 midterm elections

2. The Constitution party only had ballot access in 26 states in the 2012 presidential election

In most cases the support for these parties is only in the thousands, and the only reason they exist is that for some reason, the members don't want to be associated with either of the two main parties. However, as I've already stated, all of these parties, be it the green party, libertarian party, or the constitution party are simply fringe groups who don't even have the full support of their ideological group; Most greens are democrats, and most constitutionists and libertarians are republicans.

Edited 4/14/2016 06:00:33

I'm dropping out of this, but I will still vote imperator in the primary and main elections.

I stand by my statement.

That's no answer. Also, the USA quickly corrupted in its principles, as you'd probably agree, in truth, the original idea was to make it a confederation, where states could choose whatever they wanted, and were semi-independent, but then they got tired of that. I bet most your quotes were after 1783.

Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last.

G. Washington, first American president, commander of the American army in the American revolution.

I actually never said that.

B. Franklin.

Neither did I.

T. Jefferson.

As for your quote on J. Adams, he seems to be talking about how democracies corrupt, and I agree.

Perhaps the most authoritative document on this: the American independence declaration, written in 1776.

it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[/quote]The aim is not to have the smallest government possible, but rather to have the government that provides the most liberty. Obviously it makes the government smaller to get rid of state governments, but this would severely weaken the liberty that people enjoy currently.[/quote]

I am for a small but united government, you are for many semi-powerful governments and one bluffing federal government. And this is what weakens folk's freedoms. If you really were for state's rights, you would be for a fellow's rights, letting everyone choose, for the same grounds: literally everyone makes choices for themselves, and no opinion goes ignored.

I'm not kidding; There is literally no uniting issue in either party besides the General right-left divide, which tends to be over pretty minor issues in america.

Right now the divide is pretty much over economic issues, whether to support Economic Liberalism (right) or a more planned economy with more welfare (left). However, outside of this right-left divide of pretty much welfare, There isn't much consensus in either party on any major issue, be it Gay Marriage, Abortion, Taxation, Gun Control, or any other issue you can name.

You can go on their website and see. Also, economy isn't minor. A few stands of each, on several different concerns. D = Democratic, R = Republican, both = bad news. Most of this is from the official Democratic (https://www.democrats.org/) and Republican (https://www.gop.com/) Issues pages.

*For gay marriage (D)
*Against (R)
*For abortion by choice (D)
*Against (R)
*Lower corporate tax rates (R)
*Against (D)
*For curbing suing rights, you can't sue anyone for any grounds (D, R)

These aren't umbrella groups.

Some two party systems do have more than two parties, it's true. However, in most cases it's something like the in britain, where They have a right wing party and a left wing party holding 90% of the seats, and then a bunch of left wing parties holding like one seat each (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom). This doesn't really entail any more variety in the system, ad it's pretty much the same deal here in america; It's just that all those left wing parties are also part of the democratic party.

1 seat is still better than 0. And an even better example of the problem here: despite getting 12.7% popular vote, UKIG got 1 seat instead of a proportional 83, while the SDLG with 0.3% got 3 seats, instead of a proportional 2. But even this is better, at lest they get one seat, and groups can come and go. And the ground: this is Britain, using the same anti-popular vote systems that America is.

In most cases, third parties aren't even on the ballot, and are pretty much just people who want to be unique and not part of the "Big two". For example:

1. The Libertarian party only had ballot access in 34 states at the 2014 midterm elections

2. The Constitution party only had ballot access in 26 states in the 2012 presidential election

In most cases the support for these parties is only in the thousands, and the only reason they exist is that for some reason, the members don't want to be associated with either of the two main parties. However, as I've already stated, all of these parties, be it the green party, libertarian party, or the constitution party are simply fringe groups who don't even have the full support of their ideological group; Most greens are democrats, and most constitutionists and libertarians are republicans.

Yeah, it's terrible, and even with the ballot takings, they still got as much as 1% of the vote.

Also, I'd probably go with the Libertarian group the most in America, but far sooner I'd be Democratic than Republican. And others will be different.

But that's not the point, anyhow - they were the most supported but got 0 representation, doing all that oppressing the minority thing like you hate.

Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last.

G. Washington, first American president, commander of the American army in the American revolution.

This is a criticism of democracy ("It is what makes governments slow"), so I'm not sure why you've felt the need to quote it here.

You're right, I probably should have done some more research on those quotes by Thomas jefferson and ben franklin, but I've still got two of the most important founding fathers criticizing democracy.

a fellow's rights, letting everyone choose,

By which of course you mean that the folks who aren't part of the majority aren't actually people, right? Sort of like unborn babies?

You can go on their website and see. Also, economy isn't minor. A few stands of each, on several different concerns. D = Democratic, R = Republican, both = bad news. Most of this is from the official Democratic (https://www.democrats.org/) and Republican (https://www.gop.com/) Issues pages.

These are nowhere near universally accepted, even if the RNC and DNC (The Organizations that writes those issues pages) attempts to set them as policy for the entire party. For example:

* Gay marriage: 65/35% of Democrats support/oppose, 34/66% Of republicans support/oppose

* Abortion: 70/30% of Democrats support/oppose, 62/38% of Republicans support/oppose

Other issues you named are hard to find statistics for since people don't make money for reporting them, but they probably follow the same 65/35 split.

And if you need any more proof that simply because a party leader announces a party position it is still possible for conflicting opinions to exist within the party, simply look to my attempts to write a position on abortion for our party.

1 seat is still better than 0. And an even better example of the problem here: despite getting 12.7% popular vote, UKIG got 1 seat instead of a proportional 83, while the SDLG with 0.3% got 3 seats, instead of a proportional 2. But even this is better, at lest they get one seat, and groups can come and go. And the ground: this is Britain, using the same anti-popular vote systems that America is.

Britain does use a similar voting system, called first-past-the-post. First past the post voting only really works if you have exactly two choices, otherwise, the vote gets split, and you end up with constituencies in britain being won with 25% of the vote.

However, the thing that makes this great in america and terrible in britain is that in america there really are only two parties. Sure, the 1% of libertarians who are extremist libertarians may choose to form their own party and win 1% of the vote, but the other 99% stay in the main party. This means that representatives will always be elected by a majority, since it is impossible for between two choices for one to not get a majority, even if 1% of the vote is being sunk somewhere else on the aformentioned extremist libertarians.

But that's not the point, anyhow - they were the most supported but got 0 representation, doing all that oppressing the minority thing like you hate.

As I've said before, the vast majority of libertarians identify with the republican party, and not the libertarian party. This is essentially a disenfranchisement of third parties and not of minorities, and having only two parties makes a lot more sense in practice for systems that use local representation, such as the united states.

Edited 4/14/2016 23:09:48