or, at least, when we do get something done, it'll be actually good

Right, but why wouldn't there be two huge factions competing for the median voter in the equilibrium state? @GoldenPhoenix

Freedom of assembly is the freedom to associate or dissociate voluntarily.

how so? the runoff system eliminates strategic voting

which is dumb and anti-democratic

(I know we're a republic, but still)

The only way a third party would win in the US is by claiming the vast centrist no man's land in between the two hyperpolarized major parties.

Right, but the winning strategy for politicians is still to achieve a plurality of the vote, so the incentives haven't changed at all. There would still be a tendency towards two parties each controlling about 50% of the electorate and trying to wiggle for that extra 1%

not necessarily, because it would allow for third parties to "band together" and it would also split the major parties by allowing same-party competition, splintering the voter base further. it might still be 2 parties, but it could balance out to be a 3 or 4 party system, as opposed to the forced 2 party system that FPTP enforces

Fair enough

no, they should vote people. Not Partys

Limit the Size of the Partys

They should vote policies.

^

or change the Party System completely

oh nah

No direct democracy pls

I don't trust you people

Nobody wants direct plebiscite democracy.

I'd rather vote for a president than vote for a group of people that *might* vote for the president for me

Certainly not at the federal level.

I'd rather have a local government with much more power than the president.

A bit of decentralization of power would be much welcomed, especially in these troubling times

well yes. I'd rather have local leadership, which has the most control in the local sector, and our federal government only intervening in multi-state issues

I think everyone wants a lot more than a bit.

but anyway, I got a date. see you losers later

But if I had my way I'd probably make the feds too weak and we'd lose all that sweet territory we just spent trillions conquering

Lose it to whom?

Whoever wants it back?

idk, whoever has the stronger army, since I'd slash our defense budget that's way too high

The territory wouldn't go anywhere during a secession breakup.

but that's just me

I'm not talking about US territory, I mean the foreign land we've got boots stomping on

All our military bases that support the puppet governments we've painstakingly built up in the past 60 years

let them die

Well, sure, a breakup would cancel a lot of American imperial ventures.

puppet governments are bad

Puppet governments are bad when you have to live underneath one

yes, and how many people are we making live underneath them?

that's immoral

But I don't, and I like my free trade coffee