SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rock_nj who wrote (7337)7/15/2004 1:31:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
I'm sure the dilution in representation has been great over this period.
WHAT DILUTION?????? I just proved there was NO DILUTION.

One way or another, the votes have to be cast and the totals will determine whether a bill passes or fails, be it 435 votes or 10,000 votes.
A legislature is different from an electorate. And 10,000 can be controlled by bosses just as well as 435.

As far as fracticousness goes, who said that's necessarily a bad thing? We don't live in a Parlimentary system where fracticions sometimes make governemnt unwieldy and unstable.
"Unwieldy and unstable" seems to be exactly what you want as opposing multiple parties prevent a majority from being formed about anything and anything from ever being passed.

Those bosses? THeir the heads of all those different parties you want.

How many third party candidates have actually won a seat in Congress over the past 100 years.
Gee, maybe a majority of people might not like the 3rd party candidates. Did that ever occur to you? You think Nader or Perot could ever get a majority behind them?

Because there is nothing to prevent people from electing third party representatives if they wish.

Some of those who won, weren't even allowed ot take their seats, because their politics were too controversal.
Such as?

There you go again, blowing things out of proportion, and insulting the people of Mississippi in the process. As if the people in Mississippi would actually be in favor of such an immoral law. Please use better more realistic examples to make your arguements.
Nice try at dodging the point. Not quite good enough though.

Isn't this the same FDA that denied for years that cigarette smoking could lead to serious illnesses like cancer? Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah another attempt to dodge the same bullet.