PhiloBeddo » 15 Jun 2026, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑ No limits. Open and fair elections. Bring all commers.

Vegas » 14 Jun 2026, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑ Some simple math that even @Blackvegetable might understand...well I doubt he will, but the rest of you can get it.
Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:
Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%
So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That doesn't seem much like a majority rules outcome. Though I understand we don't have a pure democracy, we have a republic. Be that as it may, even as a republic and with an electoral college, the mathematical outcome will always be the same.
I guess no electoral system is perfect.
True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management.DeezerShoove » 15 Jun 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑ It's for a temp job anyway.
That's why dictators grin at US presidents. They just wait them out...
Xi will die of old age in that conglomeration of mudbrick villages they call China.
He'll be drooling like a pope before they scoot him to the ditch.
Meanwhile we'll have 7 more presidents...
Yes, we are Republic. But that doesn't change the math. In any voting system, if you have 3 or more candidates, then the majority of the nation will be in the hands of the minority. It doesn't matter if it's a republic, democracy, or any system that depends on votes from the people.nefarious101 » 15 Jun 2026, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ Democracy is winner take all
usually that crushes a country's ability to thrive
one side takes over, they govern solely in a way that increases it's power to become unchallengeable
America is not a democracy....it's a republic...that why it is so strong and has had legs
Great news.....the UK is now poorer than our poorest state
and the people coming to America for the world cup are finding out that they've been lied to about America
and...they aren't happy about it
Vegas » 15 Jun 2026, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑ Yes, we are Republic. But that doesn't change the math. In any voting system, if you have 3 or more candidates, then the majority of the nation will be in the hands of the minority. It doesn't matter if it's a republic, democracy, or any system that depends on votes from the people.

It's just math. It has nothing to do with corruption or any human behavior.nefarious101 » 15 Jun 2026, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑ Not here...
Clean up the corruption and voter fraud you have an entirely new game..
we are a majority right center nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs
there is still more that binds us as a nation that not....constant bickering just increases the temp
one party rule in a two party system exists out in the open
restricting candidate numbers is a form of censorship...it automatically destroys a free state
our main problem is the Left by using government and education has taught people they can vote themselves the keys to the treasury...free stuff
you make stuff harder to get....free stuff becomes more attractive
you make education **** we are back in the days of southern plantations...educating your slaves is bad...you need them dumb as a post....stupid is less like to act out or ask questions
there's a lot of work to do....and it's not gonna be pretty....I have a fondness for not pretty ...makes all this exciting
Vegas » 15 Jun 2026, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑ It's just math. It has nothing to do with corruption or any human behavior.
Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:
Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%
So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That is it.

I understand, but math isn't a myth. I am not claiming I know a better system, but there has to be a better way.
Vegas » 15 Jun 2026, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑ I understand, but math isn't a myth. I am not claiming I know a better system, but there has to be a better way.

Vegas » 15 Jun 2026, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑ True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management.
We are programmed binary. China is Uniparty. I guess Russia is too.Vegas » 14 Jun 2026, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑ Some simple math that even @Blackvegetable might understand...well I doubt he will, but the rest of you can get it.
Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:
Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%
So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That doesn't seem much like a majority rules outcome. Though I understand we don't have a pure democracy, we have a republic. Be that as it may, even as a republic and with an electoral college, the mathematical outcome will always be the same.
I guess no electoral system is perfect.
The flaw in your question is the assumption that this third party is interrupting a democracy, when what we have is an oligarchy.Vegas » 14 Jun 2026, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑ Is it more harmful to have a third party run when it makes democracy mathematically impossible?
You should be happy to invent or discover (who cares which one?) that oligarchies are the only possible MAGAmyhtical solution to the human equation.Cannonpointer » 15 Jun 2026, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑ The flaw in your question is the assumption that this third party is interrupting a democracy, when what we have is an oligarchy.
That 4 year term was MEANT to have a level of "instability" to FORCE CHANGE of leadership so that NO ONE PERSON OR PARTY would become powerful enough to overthrow the entire scheme, *******!!Vegas » 15 Jun 2026, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑ True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management.
Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2026, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑ That 4 year term was MEANT to have a level of "instability" to FORCE CHANGE of leadership so that NO ONE PERSON OR PARTY would become powerful enough to overthrow the entire scheme, *******!!
Same for House seats at 2 years and Senate for 6 year terms.
But your **** belief that somehow "Democracy" is so **** great and is what the US of A has is WILDLY COMMUNIST IN THOUGHT., cupcake!!
WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN CONFEDERATION OF STATES. PERIOD. NO DEMOCRACY ANYTHING. In a DEMOCRACY, the RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY ARE DISMISSED, REMOVED, and those who disagree are EXTERMINATED.
Now, SHUT THE **** UP about **** you know ZERO ABOUT, COMMIE ASSHOLE!!
When the ENTIRE PREMISE of your OP is dead *** wrong, there's nothing to understand, ****!!Vegas » 16 Jun 2026, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑ I didn't expect you to understand the math in the OP, so don't worry. I expected an ignorant reply from you.