Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 06:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd prefer more parties, I'm just saying less is more stable. Trumps administration is a great example.

I have a hard time computing that.

(10-17-2017, 06:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Since he ran under one of the two parties, the safeguards of career politicians are there to ensure a smoother transition than if he were the member of a radical smaller party with no existing staff with experience  to help.

Yeah, that didn't make it much easier.
Hasn't Trumps administration, where staffers and professional politicians already left in astonishing numbers, still hundreds of appointments to fill? I ask that because we solve that problem by not changing too much staff in the first place. Just the heads, basically. While this is not ideal, it's still a better safeguard than hoping that big enough parties produce a sufficient number of capable people. I do not see that as a given, and even if it were someone still would need to choose them.

(10-17-2017, 07:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The concept of "one person, one vote" ignores the herd mentality...and a "minority" being overrun by the herd is precisely why the system was designed as it was.

Howgh.

I happen to not agree with that point at all. You cannot just tell a certain american citizen that his vote should count, albeit slightly, less because (s)he's part of a "highly populated echo chamber."
States rights are a completely different cup of tea. Federal overreach has nothing to do inherently with how the votes are counted though.