Is english your native language? Or is my writing so bad you missed my entire point?
Look if crazy right-wing facists can get 30% of the vote then get a proportional amount of seats, something is wrong. As long as Europe has this philosophy of "representation by proportion' there will be always raving lunatics swaying the public to vote for them. Europeans are just as stupid as Americans; at least our government protects us from our own stupidity.
I'm sorry but please provide examples of laws actually being 'reversed' without the use of the US court system. I'm sure there is probably examples and you seem to know of them. Or else you wouldn't make such a statement. Or would you?
Yes, it is fairer. Is it fair that (in a district system such as the U.S. has) one person gets to represent all people in his area, even if only 60% voted for him? No, if 60% voted, about 60% of influence should go to him, 40% to other(s). The last presedential election (a few votes making the difference between one person or the other) shows this clearly.
The American system is representative, if you lose the election there is no 'second place'. This is a strength really. Why should someone who gets like 10% of the votes get a certain number of seats? In someone wins with 60% of the votes they certainly deserve to hold a seat. America excludes small factions because simply they are small. If you include every little faction, you'd have a mess in the House and Senate. Plus American politics have been historically pretty centrist.
Look if we had more parties that divided up the vote then Ross Perot could have been our president in 1992. I sure as hell didnt want that.
In 'extreme' systems such as the U.S. chances are that the next government reverses the policies of the former. Instead of gradual evolution you get large changes that nullify what happened before. This is inefficient and shortsighted.
I don't think the US system is extreme at all. If anything its very moderate. Plus you can not reverse laws in the US. Only the court system can find laws unconstitional. This keeps our laws basically along the lines spelled out in the Constitution. Now can foreign policy change? Yes but it's never going to be that drastic and if it is there is always an election coming up in November. The war in Vietnam was so unpopular that LBJ didnt even attempt at reelection.
The main problem I have is that you don't need a majority vote of 50% or more to win an election. With 4-5 or so major parties, you only need like ~30% of the vote. This leads to major populist movements all of sudden coming into power. I mean look at some of the elections in Europe. The very-right sometimes gets enough seats to actually have power. To me this seems dangerous and it is.
At least with a two-party system you get politics that are basically centrist. The Republicans and Democrats may differ but its not a gap that you see in some European parliments. Also to me this means its easier to get compromises on bills. I can go on and on about it really. However to sum it up the two-party system is just more stable, yes it has problems but a deeper investigation will reveal these problems have alot more to do with capitalism then the democratic infrastructure.
it's not as bad as the Deep Blue incident. While the programmers distracted the ref, Deep Blue threw sand in Kasparov's eyes then hit him with a steel folding chair ignoring pleas of mercy from the crowd. Sad day for Chess fans everywhere...
Hence the name 'user' without these things called 'users' the only person using your software would be you. Again the problem with open source software is that the coders think they are Gods and the us lowly users are peons who should tremble underneath their feet.
I appreaciate it when you work hard and code something I can use. But when you neglect user requests out of ignorance and arrogance, it becomes a different story. Get your head out of your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
it's fucking Finland, who gives a rats ass. And if you are from Finland please don't send me rats' asses.
Nerdiest reply ever.
(is nerdiest a word?)
my dick inside your girlfriend. Which would only exist in the realm of imagination since no one here has girlfriends.
Sure Xbox has plenty of crappy titles. And idiots who think a purple console makes you gay buy them. Is it Nintendo's fault people are stupid?
eat a dick nigger
kill your wife? I mean if you were black you'd be in the courthouse.
it's more like..
"this is not a penis in my hand... it is a lightsaber"
Crack open the box with the said papers and tear some of them up or write new ones!
And in america, everyone wins!!!!!
why does Election day have to be so close to Christmas?
I voted for Lautenberg, yugi-oh, godzilla, mickey mouse, goku, and super mario cart.
to Lindenwold everyday to take the train to school. And they need that 911. Niggas be crazy.
blah
Is english your native language? Or is my writing so bad you missed my entire point?
Look if crazy right-wing facists can get 30% of the vote then get a proportional amount of seats, something is wrong. As long as Europe has this philosophy of "representation by proportion' there will be always raving lunatics swaying the public to vote for them. Europeans are just as stupid as Americans; at least our government protects us from our own stupidity.
I'm sorry but please provide examples of laws actually being 'reversed' without the use of the US court system. I'm sure there is probably examples and you seem to know of them. Or else you wouldn't make such a statement. Or would you?
Yes, it is fairer. Is it fair that (in a district system such as the U.S. has) one person gets to represent all people in his area, even if only 60% voted for him? No, if 60% voted, about 60% of influence should go to him, 40% to other(s). The last presedential election (a few votes making the difference between one person or the other) shows this clearly.
The American system is representative, if you lose the election there is no 'second place'. This is a strength really. Why should someone who gets like 10% of the votes get a certain number of seats? In someone wins with 60% of the votes they certainly deserve to hold a seat. America excludes small factions because simply they are small. If you include every little faction, you'd have a mess in the House and Senate. Plus American politics have been historically pretty centrist.
Look if we had more parties that divided up the vote then Ross Perot could have been our president in 1992. I sure as hell didnt want that.
In 'extreme' systems such as the U.S. chances are that the next government reverses the policies of the former. Instead of gradual evolution you get large changes that nullify what happened before. This is inefficient and shortsighted.
I don't think the US system is extreme at all. If anything its very moderate. Plus you can not reverse laws in the US. Only the court system can find laws unconstitional. This keeps our laws basically along the lines spelled out in the Constitution. Now can foreign policy change? Yes but it's never going to be that drastic and if it is there is always an election coming up in November. The war in Vietnam was so unpopular that LBJ didnt even attempt at reelection.
The main problem I have is that you don't need a majority vote of 50% or more to win an election. With 4-5 or so major parties, you only need like ~30% of the vote. This leads to major populist movements all of sudden coming into power. I mean look at some of the elections in Europe. The very-right sometimes gets enough seats to actually have power. To me this seems dangerous and it is.
At least with a two-party system you get politics that are basically centrist. The Republicans and Democrats may differ but its not a gap that you see in some European parliments. Also to me this means its easier to get compromises on bills. I can go on and on about it really. However to sum it up the two-party system is just more stable, yes it has problems but a deeper investigation will reveal these problems have alot more to do with capitalism then the democratic infrastructure.
Seig Heil!
The more we have third party, the closer we get to fairer, European-style representation.
Do we really want that and is it indeed fairer?
play with my junk?
right next to the Yugi-Oh cards.
it's not as bad as the Deep Blue incident. While the programmers distracted the ref, Deep Blue threw sand in Kasparov's eyes then hit him with a steel folding chair ignoring pleas of mercy from the crowd. Sad day for Chess fans everywhere...
our galaxy does suck.
Open Source software is people working for the benefit of other people.
Oh how I wish that was true....
If you want some respect for your work then why do you post anonymously? Look I always give coders their respect but respect is a mutual thing.
Why the fuck should I work for the user?
Hence the name 'user' without these things called 'users' the only person using your software would be you. Again the problem with open source software is that the coders think they are Gods and the us lowly users are peons who should tremble underneath their feet.
I appreaciate it when you work hard and code something I can use. But when you neglect user requests out of ignorance and arrogance, it becomes a different story. Get your head out of your ass.