CHANGE!

[Remington]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

[Remington]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.

About 50/308.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.

About 50/308.

Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?

[Remington]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.

About 50/308.

Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?

In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial). Separation of the branches of government doesn't apply in Canada: it's one of the things I do like about American politics.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.

About 50/308.

Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?

In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial).

Assuming, of course, that the majority party votes party line.  That's not always a given, even with the liberals.

[Remington]

1.  Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.

How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?

Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.

Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See:  Canada).

I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.

(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)

They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones.  Majority governments are a thing of the past.

3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.

Why not?

Quebecois.

Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.

How many seats do they have?

Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.

About 50/308.

Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?

In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial).

Assuming, of course, that the majority party votes party line.  That's not always a given, even with the liberals.

Party loyalty is much more rigidly enforced in Canada. After all, if you vote against the party line and ruin the PM's style, you won't ever get a cushy Senate seat.

[Death]

I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08.  He's from Chicago, come on.  I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.

1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do.  

Two party system sucks big fat cock.  
What about the Greens and Libertarians?  I bet they wish they could have a turn.  I don't know how many times I've heard "don't throw your vote away" to people who want to vote for them.

1.  Duverger's Law states that's all you're going to get with our system.  So far, he's been 169% correct.

2.  Just because the Greens and Libertarians are funnier doesn't mean they're better.

Fact:  Under the Greens, you have no hope of getting a job.  Under the Libertarians, you have no hope of getting a weekend (or a living wage).

How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for?  We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand.  I may just be young but the only people I see elected are Rs or Ds and your super rare Independent.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for?  We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand. 

We've seen the Libertarians first hand.  1865-1910...A real paradise for the working class.  Is 45 years not a good enough test?

And have you READ the Green's platform?

[Death]

He's from Kenya, come on. 

Fixed

He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant.  I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached?  He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.

Actually, he wasn't buddy buddy with Blago when Blago tried his shennanigans.

But why let facts get in the way?

He stated barely a week after he had been elected that he and Blago were communicating about what was to be done with his seat.  After shit hit the fan he claimed to know nothing.  Yeah, he might not have known anything, but he probably did.  It's personal bias, and I don't believe shit from him.

2.  HAR!  I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet.  I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it.  In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.

You even said.  I am young though, and I'm not as sure of these things just because I haven't seen/experienced very much, especially when it comes to watching politicians up close.

[Death]

I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08.  He's from Chicago, come on.  I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.

Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.

I dislike them equally.  No preference.

Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two.   

There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.

I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference.  I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama.  They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He stated barely a week after he had been elected that he and Blago were communicating about what was to be done with his seat.  After shit hit the fan he claimed to know nothing.  Yeah, he might not have known anything, but he probably did.  It's personal bias, and I don't believe shit from him.

Yeah, his communication was "You'll have my gratitude", which is NOT what Blago wanted to hear.  Unless you have a credible link proving otherwise...If you do, the FBI would be very interested, because the above is all they got on tape.

He's filthy, but not stupid.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08.  He's from Chicago, come on.  I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.

Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.

I dislike them equally.  No preference.

Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two.   

There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.

I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference.  I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama.  They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.

So you have no preference between 2 wars and 3?

[Death]

How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for?  We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand. 

We've seen the Libertarians first hand.  1865-1910...A real paradise for the working class.  Is 45 years not a good enough test?

And have you READ the Green's platform?

The economy was completely different.  I would have to see it in a more modern situation.
Bits and pieces, I don't directly understand how it would take away hope for jobs.

[Death]

I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08.  He's from Chicago, come on.  I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.

Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.

I dislike them equally.  No preference.

Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two.   

There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.

I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference.  I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama.  They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.

So you have no preference between 2 wars and 3?

3 wars, or stimulus package.  And various other extreme spending.  Neither grab me and swing me to their side because they're both so undesirable.