Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

Yay!

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Vokbain, Mar 27, 2003.

  1. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I know you have more then the big two, we have seven major parties and a large amount of lesser ones.

    Don´t the two party system has a problem with "splitting the vote"?
     
  2. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    The thing is that your Canada is less than a fourth the size of one of our provinces. The Ontario liberals are very different from the BC liberals. A liberal in one area might even be considered a conservative in another.
     
  3. MisterHalleck

    MisterHalleck Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    15
    Market Rating:
    0
    it's all relative. Really, having more than two or three major parties is a problem. One of the reasons that George Bush Sr. didn't win the 1992 election was because Ross Perot (conservative kinda guy) took a large percentage of the Republican voters, which drained Bush of the votes he needed to beat Clinton. Those other six parties in Sweden must not get in power very often...
     
  4. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    It was Dole, not Bush
     
  5. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Dole ran in 96, Bush was running for re-election in 92.

    Perot ran both times, as did Forbes.
     
  6. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    Wooops... I just kept seeing 96 lol
     
  7. MisterHalleck

    MisterHalleck Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    15
    Market Rating:
    0
    either way Perot was getting in the way of the Republican Party.
     
  8. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well, we usually have minority governments, the two other parties on the left wing supports the government and are thus given some influence. Sometimes the asshats (right wing people) form the government (the largest party of them) and the other parties support them.

    So they do get in power, they just don´t form the government.

    The Bush senior thing, is "splitting the vote", right?
     
  9. jesse_us10

    jesse_us10 Peasant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    The system if fine. The reason we use the electoral system is to equilize the states powers. The number of electoral votes of each state is based on its population. So it does represent the population also. If we went by the popular vote only the the states of New York and California would always decide who would become president. That would make the votes in the other states useless and thus not represented in there vote.

    So its not splitting the vote but a vote the represents the opinion of the people. In either system. Someone wins and someone loses.
     
  10. MisterHalleck

    MisterHalleck Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    15
    Market Rating:
    0
    actually states have electoral people in proportion to their population. Florida and Texas both are high, with 25 votes, but California has such a huge pop that it gets 54
     

Hitometer: 53,932,071 since 1995