StoneyPicton

I've always leaned toward ranked ballots as I felt it would be an improvement over a constant over-representation of the conservative mentality in a majority progressive country. Recently there have been posts on Lemmy where people have made good points for proportional representation (PR) but I still have reservations. I agree with a post here about the fact the party ultimately chooses who to appoint to the earned positions and so also agree that it would need to be adjusted with an open list, details to be worked out. My main objection to the PR system though is the rise of many single issue and or myopic platforms for parties that would get representation. My fear would be a party coalition quagmire where issues that should never see the light of day are entertained in an effort to appease the dubious partners. Would we want a Muslim, Christian or Hindu party pushing a particular agenda? Would we want an NRA backed group pushing gun freedom? I feel I could only support PR if there were guardrails put in place to mitigate this type threat. I've had someone comment that if that's what people choose then shouldn't they have that right? I understand that point but still have reservations. Thanks for prompting this discussion.

It's a good thing to have control of your border and it's a good thing to break up and deport criminal gangs. As always, his methods are moronic.

yeh, I should have added that disclaimer, lol.

I don't know the details of the powers trump would have under a shutdown so I'll have to reserve judgement on this one. Some of the dems are acting a little shell shocked since this chaos started though so you wonder if they can be useful again.

I hadn't looked closely at that. I'll have a look, thanks.

I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I'd vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers

I agree and am not opposed to PR. I only worry about the fracturing of the electorate.

I much prefer ranked ballots to PR. IMO PR will lead to dozens of niche parties with single issue platforms that will end in coalition hell.

Don't know where to start with this one. Creating more political parties just splits the vote. In a "first pass the post" election set up, this would be a disaster. Allowing someone to become extremely rich is not necessarily a problem. The problem should really be looked at more from the gap between them and the normies. Shrink that gap and that lessons the problem. The biggest problem with extreme wealth in an individual or corporation is the outsized influence they have on politics and government. Your SC's citizen united decision is the real problem that generates a lot of the hate for the rich. Rich people don't want to be taxed more (in general) so if you try to force it on them they will look for solutions like relocating their tax home. You would need to have tools to punish attempts to do this, like loss of citizenship and asset seizures. These are not popular steps and could sink any initiative before it begins. Those are just some of the problems I see. There are many, many more.

The title was a bit confusing. I think your point is that it should also be taught at parochial schools. There is no doubt this is the case. The thing that gets me is that is comes down to what public (or private to some extent) educations goal should be. I think that schools should teach all topics as it is important to expose kids to all aspects of life and let their passions lead them to a satisfying path. Others think that parents should have more control in restricting what topics are covered. I think there is a way to honour both approaches but there is conflict in its organization.