I've always leaned toward ranked ballots as I felt it would be an improvement over a constant over-representation of the conservative mentality in a majority progressive country. Recently there have been posts on Lemmy where people have made good points for proportional representation (PR) but I still have reservations. I agree with a post here about the fact the party ultimately chooses who to appoint to the earned positions and so also agree that it would need to be adjusted with an open list, details to be worked out. My main objection to the PR system though is the rise of many single issue and or myopic platforms for parties that would get representation. My fear would be a party coalition quagmire where issues that should never see the light of day are entertained in an effort to appease the dubious partners. Would we want a Muslim, Christian or Hindu party pushing a particular agenda? Would we want an NRA backed group pushing gun freedom? I feel I could only support PR if there were guardrails put in place to mitigate this type threat. I've had someone comment that if that's what people choose then shouldn't they have that right? I understand that point but still have reservations. Thanks for prompting this discussion.
StoneyPicton
It's a good thing to have control of your border and it's a good thing to break up and deport criminal gangs. As always, his methods are moronic.
yeh, I should have added that disclaimer, lol.
I don't know the details of the powers trump would have under a shutdown so I'll have to reserve judgement on this one. Some of the dems are acting a little shell shocked since this chaos started though so you wonder if they can be useful again.
His thoughts are definitely not mainstream and in this case he's giving too much credit to a healthy diet, but damn if I don't agree with some of the things he says. I'd love to know the truth of his sources. Here's an interview he did before the election.
You have to stand up and challenge him. Silence only gets us where we are.
Sure, MRNA is proof the guberment is trying to poison you but the hormonal problems caused by plastics that increase the numbers of people you hate is just fine. It's tiresome.
Great bit, thanks.
This is what we call "hedging your bets".
How nice of them to help.
I don't suggest that one issue parties would form government. I do suggest however that a one issue party would be part of a coalition and would eventually want their one issue addressed. If a coalition government wanted the votes for an issue they really felt important, they may concede to other issues that they would not otherwise entertain. I know you will say, rightly, that this is what democracy and working with others is all about. My complaint is that it simplifies what governing an entire country entails. I feel it invalidates governance when myopic views are allowed to prevail and striving for one issue can eliminate proper consideration of another for the simple desire to get that one issue passed. I feel this contributes to allowing an ignorant electorate to treat the only thing the care about as a zero sum game where no matter what else is allowed to happen, at least they get their way. I know I overplay this narrative and simplify my concerns but the underlying premise is still valid. To not strive for a more informed electorate and a more broad appreciation of cause and effect does no one any favours.