Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 07:24 PM

After reading (and baing involved with) threads on this and other boards, reading the papers, watching news shows, and listening to newstalk radio, I started to wonder if there is any way to reconcile all the various interests/views/ideologies across the country.

There is numerous ways that the country seems sharply divided. Besides the obvious individual issues (gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc.) there is also a sharp divide between Dem/Rep, conservative/liberal, christian/non-christian, religious/non-religious, rural/urban, hell even urban/suburban. And it seems neither side wants to give any.

And even though I'm on the victorious side for most of those this election cycle, I think it is disturbing now and for the future that there is no seeming compromise. With a winner-take-all system, 3% becomes a massive margin. And even though I know my side might be up now, I know 2 or 4 years down the road if the differences cannot be reconciled I know I could face having my opinions totally blocked by those in office.

Is it worth it for the Reps to try to push as much far-right/central (depending on your view

) agenda through, and hope they can hold on later? Should they make the compromise and attempt to be more giving on certain issues, but face the possibility of having the Dems come in and go far-left/central as retribution for supposed wrongs already down/to be done in the future? Because if the differences are that great, would any meeting halfway be accepted as such? I think only 25-50% of either party is hardcore, but I feel the remainder of each party would not risk alienating their base if they feel people are really that split, so would be more radical.

Also, I remember from my one of my government classes a year or so ago that many other countries in Europe don't have a strict winner-take-all elections. If 50% vote for party A, 30% party B, and 20% party C that proportion would take office in the legislative body. Now, if anyone is in a country like that (and I think my prof said France was one) what do you think of the system? Is my understanding correct? And one of the problems my prof said was that marginal parties had a disproportionate amount of power, do you find that to be so?

11-04-2004, 07:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Is America one country anymore? After reading (and baing involved with) threads on this and other boards, reading the papers, watching news shows, and listening to newstalk radio, I started to wonder if there is any way to reconcile all the various interests/views/ideologies across the country. There is numerous ways that the country seems sharply divided. Besides the obvious individual issues (gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc.) there is also a sharp divide between Dem/Rep, conservative/liberal, christian/non-christian, religious/non-religious, rural/urban, hell even urban/suburban. And it seems neither side wants to give any. And even though I'm on the victorious side for most of those this election cycle, I think it is disturbing now and for the future that there is no seeming compromise. With a winner-take-all system, 3% becomes a massive margin. And even though I know my side might be up now, I know 2 or 4 years down the road if the differences cannot be reconciled I know I could face having my opinions totally blocked by those in office. Is it worth it for the Reps to try to push as much far-right/central (depending on your view ) agenda through, and hope they can hold on later? Should they make the compromise and attempt to be more giving on certain issues, but face the possibility of having the Dems come in and go far-left/central as retribution for supposed wrongs already down/to be done in the future? Because if the differences are that great, would any meeting halfway be accepted as such? I think only 25-50% of either party is hardcore, but I feel the remainder of each party would not risk alienating their base if they feel people are really that split, so would be more radical. Also, I remember from my one of my government classes a year or so ago that many other countries in Europe don't have a strict winner-take-all elections. If 50% vote for party A, 30% party B, and 20% party C that proportion would take office in the legislative body. Now, if anyone is in a country like that (and I think my prof said France was one) what do you think of the system? Is my understanding correct? And one of the problems my prof said was that marginal parties had a disproportionate amount of power, do you find that to be so?