Holy ********* Crazy

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So someone's whose view is in the extreme minority isn't being represented because they don't have a person who is going to lose to vote for?  The Republican in LA feels better because he gets to cast a losing vote?  

It seems you don't comprehend what I was saying. Disenfranchisement is being unable to have a voice in your government. If no one is even available to vote for that represents your views it can be seen as a type of disenfranchisement. Even if you are in the minority and you never vote for a winning candidate, if you have a candidate you feel comfortable supporting then you have had your voice heard.

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The colonists had zero representation as a whole.  They didn't revolt because some people didn't think their point of view was being represented.  They revolted because they had no representation period.

According to the British government, the colonies were represented. It's all a matter of perspective. They saw the representation of the colonies as adequate, many in the colonies felt it was not. All of this is subjective, which is why you can disagree with me on this but it doesn't mean either one of us is right or wrong. My position is that our country is underrepresented and there are segments of the population that are disenfranchised because of it (beyond those that some states work to actively disenfranchise).

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If the majority of people don't want it changed, then that's what we are as a people.  If someone is 30 years old, and no candidate from mayor to President  has yet to represent their lofty views properly, then maybe the problem is with them.  

Or maybe we have a political system that is antiquated and needs updated, and not just because we have had the same number of representatives in our federal government we had a century ago when we were less than one-third our current population.