Re: Facebook Account

On Mon, 04 Nov 2024 12:59:13 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

The US has always had exactly two political parties.  The big
advantage is that neither party want to split their votes between two
or more factions.  That's because neither of the two factions can
deliver enough votes to overthrow the opposing party that remained in
one piece.  There have been independent and third party movements
(i.e. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996) that might have delivered a
functional third party, but in the end, he couldn't deliver the
required electoral votes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot>
"Perot did not win any electoral votes, but won over 19.7 million
votes for an 18.9% share of the popular vote."

Don't you think that's "unfair" ?

The Economist has a "democracy index" which weighs in all
sorts of stuff, from the voter's access to real news and their
educational level to how candidates are funded.
You get more points if elected politician actually represent
the people. Less votes if they just lobby for some company(which can
even be foreign). More votes if people have access to the politician's
real lives and motives, less points if the are heavily influenced by
false propaganda.
The US does not fare very well. In fact, it's not even
classified as a "full democracy".
And you can hardly call the "Economist" a communist or
socialist enterprise. LOL. It's center-right.

"But it's in the Constitution" - just saying that lowers the
score. The World has changed a LOT in over 100 years, and laws need to
change to accompany that.


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index>
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021