SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Which competition should be added to political debates?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 63 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably
not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
-- H. L. Mencken
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shanen on Sunday October 30 2016, @05:43AM
Cooperation is one of the reasons for coalition government. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is hard-coded for winner-takes-all, so the equilibrium points are two parties or one.
Probably even worse, each issue gets reduced to a scale, and whichever side of the scale your party started on, both parties wind up trying to get to the middle of the Bell Curve where most of the voters are. Essentially impossible to sustain any ideological positions, in contrast to coalition governments where you can gain some degree of power just by being strong on any important issue.
The GOP decided to try to rig the game by moving the right side goalposts. Their idea was to make the middle look closer to their preferred outcome, but they moved the goalposts so far that they wound up in Wonderland. Now Trump is leading the entire party down the rabbit hole.
My "Other" answer was "Substantial discussion of the ACTUAL issues". Of course that is predicated on having a candidate who is not dominating the election with such pageantry as accusations and denials of sexual assault.
Try to imagine that you wanted to ask Trump about why the election is rigged in favor of his churchgoing farmers. I'd wage he has NO idea what the 2nd Tuesday in November thing is all about. Another bit of the Constitution that needs improvement, eh?
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.