one more arguement for porportional(sp) repersentation

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

this was too fucking close, 50 percent or so in most of the key battle ground states, why the hell are we still doing first past the post, and why the hell has no one figured out electing the president means pr and other significant electoral reforms are possible.

― anthony, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:33 (twenty years ago)

I don't mind it in the least. Keeps the looneys away and forces parties to the center. Special interest parties such as the Green Party suffer but its a small price to pay to keep Marxist or Communist party from wasting more space then the BQ already do.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:59 (twenty years ago)

Well, you can't actually have proportional representation in a presidential election, because only one candidate (and their vice) wins. PR only works for electing members to assemblies. You could have a better system than the electoral colleges, but you couldn't have PR.

If you meant that the presidential election should be decided on the popular vote, then, me too.

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:07 (twenty years ago)

We just had a thread about this (and the situation in Canada was addressed as well):
what are the arguments against deciding the us election by popular vote?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:14 (twenty years ago)

(Of course it's a moot point in this case unless Kerry magically wins Florida or Ohio.)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:15 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.