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.

It's slow, but still far the best, that's what he's saying.

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?

Either way, you're allowing the legal knack to do abortions (also, minority are fellows, - year olds aren't).

* 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.

Who is Democrats and Republicans, the actual politicians or those who side with them? Anyhow, as I said earlier, it is ok to disagree with some policies, just not too many. Boy, don't you think the Libertarians would love it if they could get a real Libertarian in the Republican group? But they can't, they're just against conservism too much.

Also, this is not going to be like real American elections, and we haven't even picked a leader yet.

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.

Libertarians and folk whose votes differ much from the mainstream groups often don't vote or just vote for the better of two evils. It's definitely a terrible system, and there's not always an absolute majority. George Bush won getting the minority vote in 2000: 47.9% contrasted to Al Gore's 48.4%. And it's also terrible since it means that this party gets all the power, since half is everything in politic house.

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.

Vast? I doubt it. They only share outlooks with the Republicans on economy, that's it, they're much more of a match for Democrats.

Are you seriously making a case for this ridiculous politican stuff so that they can maneouvre more votes and turn America into a one-party country when the gap is nulled? That's ridiculous.

Edited 4/14/2016 23:41:52

Whatever, we'll leave that to vote, I guess, this isn't conviction. Let's go over the stands, say if disagreement. Contentities:

*Lower military spending by 100% (but not disbanding it)
*Make vote by popularity.
*End the American Senate, and any system where laws are chosen un-proportionally.

Foreign policy:
*Stop supporting all Middle Eastern governments and others, pull out of all wars America is in now.
*America should go on being an UN member country.
*No torture, ever.
*Abolish NSA, FBI, and CIA, and like programmes.
*Keep foreign help spending at the same rate as military spending.

Immigration policy:
*End any immigration caps, and un-coin the word "illegal immigrant". Have fully open borders.
*Allow everyone in the world to vote in American elections.
*Make citizenship mostly a nominal title.
*Take out non-English and non-Spanish translations from government documents. Make Spanish a co-official tongue.
*End the policy of "worker visas": anyone can work, from anywhere, to anyone.

Home policy:
*End forcing businesses to hire based on sex, gender, skinhue, so on.
*Legalise all drugs, free anyone in for drug offences.
*Allow unlimited donations to politic candidates.
*End gerrymandering: switch it with a proportional (to popular vote) compromising committee.
*Enforce anti-monopolisation policies on the internet sellers.
*Phase out government pensions and most welfare programmes.
*Illegalise government stealing your stuff "for the greater good".
*Illegalise government shirking of duties, like the American Senate.
*Mandate a few background checks on buying a gun: sanity, no violent past, he's not at big, so on.
*Allow folk on the "no-fly" list to buy guns until the list is way narrowed and checked for being right.
*Allow anyone to sue anyone for any grounds.

(more later)

Who is Democrats and Republicans, the actual politicians or those who side with them? Anyhow, as I said earlier, it is ok to disagree with some policies, just not too many. Boy, don't you think the Libertarians would love it if they could get a real Libertarian in the Republican group? But they can't, they're just against conservism too much.

Also, this is not going to be like real American elections, and we haven't even picked a leader yet.

It's actually self identified republicans and democrats, since a lot of people are not actually members of any party.

Actually, we have picked a party leader: Me.

Libertarians and folk whose votes differ much from the mainstream groups often don't vote or just vote for the better of two evils. It's definitely a terrible system, and there's not always an absolute majority. George Bush won getting the minority vote in 2000: 47.9% contrasted to Al Gore's 48.4%. And it's also terrible since it means that this party gets all the power, since half is everything in politic house.

We were discussing house of representative elections and contrasting them to british parliamentary elections, not the electoral college.
_______________________________

Yes, the electoral college has elected presidents who haven't won the popular vote a few times. In fact, this has actually happened three times.

However, in case you hadn't noticed, Al gore still did not reach a majority; both he, Bush, and ralph nader (The green party guy) had minorities. When Everyone has minorities, it's not clear to me that one minority having power is any more democratic than the other.

In fact, there has only been one occurrence of someone winning the majority of votes and not getting the presidency, and IMO this is the only election in american history that can truly be called "undemocratic".

However, as I've been arguing for a while, democracy is not necessarily the most moral way to govern.

Vast? I doubt it. They only share outlooks with the Republicans on economy, that's it, they're much more of a match for Democrats.

You like making assumptions that are completely off base and using them to make arguments don't you?

Libertarians share views with republicans on small government and economic issues, but differ only in that they believe that government should not be responsible for social issues whereas liberals and conservatives normally think that it should.

This is when compared to the democrats who promote big government and are the mortal enemies of libertarians on economic issues, it's not hard to see why the libertarian party has actually asked people to not support the democratic party.

I've incorporated some of your requests into our party platform. Here's the latest version:

1. End Government involvement in marriage

2. Repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion at the federal level, but permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in cases of incest, rape, or other specified circumstances

3. Provide a modest tax cut for everyone by getting rid of unnecessary/liberty impeding government programs like:

3c. Federal Communications commission
3e. All welfare programs
5a. Cut Military spending by 80%
5b. National Security Agency
3d. Central Intelligence Agency

4. End ALL government prohibitions on drugs, as well as treat drug users rather than throwing them in jail

5. End liberty-restricting laws like:

5a. Obscenity laws restricting pornography
5b. Laws restricting religious practice such as prayer in schools
5c. Laws requiring people to wear seat belts
5d. Unreasonable copyright laws; Perhaps limit copyright protection to 8 years
5g. Eminent domain (This is the name of the practice of taking private property for roads and such)
5h. Employment Discrimination laws
5i. Campaign contribution restrictions

Edited 4/15/2016 00:24:41

When'd you become leader? Well, if you're leader, then I definitely leave as you're being downright antagonistic passive-aggressive with these new "compromises".

We voted

Well Xapy, it's either Imperator's Libertarians, My Republicans/Teas, or whoever's Socialists/Greens. You're welcome to join me, but I don't see that happening.

Republicans talk a big game about small government but do not really want a smaller government. They are pro-corporatism , are protectionists and hate immigrants (cheap labor).

(X screwed the pooch when he voted for himself instead of me, because I'm more leaning towards his viewpoints. Bit angry at him for it.)

(You are welcome to join us, too.)

Yeah, Republicans wanting smaller government - that's just bullshit. They want to illegalise what they think immoral, they support uncurbed government surveillance of everyone on Earth, they support more military deeds. They're the folk who a Libertarian whose got his priorties in order would hate the most. Sure, they're ok about economy (could be better and freer, but eh), but that's where the most match is. Libertarians agree with Republicans on economic (capitalist), social (no mandates for private businesses, that's were the match ends here), and environmental (let the free market ruin the world. go team petrol.) policy, all of which are not nearly important as the two matches with Democrats: foreign (hey, how about, I don't know, we bomb some countries but leave the rest alone? as opposed to bombing every country?) and immigrant (c'mon on in) policy.

(National Socialists or National Corporatists? I'd rather join the military.)

(You do you, good men. But if you change your mind after a while, or see something you like, there is a spot for any who wish to pop a squat in the Republican Party.)

When'd you become leader? Well, if you're leader, then I definitely leave as you're being downright antagonistic passive-aggressive with these new "compromises".

Sorry, I guess I just get irritated sometimes :/ I really am trying my best to not be antagonistic and to listen to what everyone has to say.

Edited 4/15/2016 03:21:50