A Can of Man
Je suis aware
FPP is far better. Basically if someone wins the election, I want to know that they are in charge.
FPP is far better. Basically if someone wins the election, I want to know that they are in charge.
Plus, if you don't like what that elected party did, the people can choose the other parties next time and give them a proper shot.
I think you are assuming that people are capable of changing their vote, most people I know would vote for their traditional party even if they put a chimp up for office.
We had a homeless alcoholic chosen into the city counsel of Amsterdam in the '20's. His only political point was a free government-drink per day. He won the elections and the poor sod was declared insane and locked away in a luney-bin. How is that for a well oiled democracy?
A popular vote is no better than anarchy. That was not the way the founders meant for things to be decided, by mob rule. That simply encourages buying votes with promises that can't possibly be fulfilled. If a politician promises everything for nothing, then the ones who vote for him/her become a bloc who are ignorant to the facts of life that success is not won through sloth and procreation at the expense of taxpayers. It has never worked and never will.
True. I made a mistake here, I said popular vote went I meant to say parliamentary system -as opposed to the electoral collage. We should adapt the systems found in Canada and Europe, they seem to be more accurate, fair and harder to cheat.
Take the 2000 election as an example. Gore beat Bush by over 500,000 votes (1/2 a Million people) and we STILL got Bush. Any system that allows that to happen is a flawed system.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.