The Grand Old Party has a chance to win the Senate next year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The mouse;41498667]A PR system wouldn't help America when it has only 3 mass political parties. It'd just result in more Deadlock.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. When more parties are allowed to actually exist in this system, representation will be dispersed from the republican and democratic parties by the formation of groups based on more specific interests. You'll be less likely to find socially-liberal free-market advocates in the same ring as social conservatives, which opens more doors for compromises, because they don't have to appeal to such broad bases.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41489100]There are third parties. The best thing people can do is try to get rid of the idea that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote" (because there is no such thing as a wasted vote, even if it's blank)[/QUOTE] You guys should just introduce federal law as the only law, and then just decide elections on majority vote rather than having the electoral college. That way it'd actually be feasible with third parties.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41506468]Why should we be increasing the power of cities?[/QUOTE] They hold the most people, wealth, production and service facilities, plus its where the seats of governance tend to be. People in the countryside already have too much power. Rural areas used to have higher population densities but now its increasingly marginal. [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;41509204]This is why we have states. We have over 300,000,000 people, there's no reason to force everyone to live under the same exact laws. The more rural states are usually in support of strong states rights. So they have no problem letting the cities do whatever they want, but would rather the people living in urban centers, who have no idea about the problems rural areas face, to not force their laws on them. On the other hand, urban centers would rather force their opinions on everyone no matter what.[/QUOTE] This seems rather odd. Why can't urban people understand what happens in the countryside? There are books and websites of information available. They can always travel there as well given that rural areas are literally outside of cities. Why should rural areas have power when barely anyone excepting farmers living off government benefits lives there?

What power do they have? Aside from the ability to burn their entire fields down, and force the entire country to ration food.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41530322]What power do they have? Aside from the ability to burn their entire fields down, and force the entire country to ration food.[/QUOTE] This doesn't make any sense for two reasons: 1. If they burned down their fields, they would go bankrupt. 2. You can import food from abroad lol.

rip in peace america 1776 - 1981

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41530329]This doesn't make any sense for two reasons: 1. If they burned down their fields, they would go bankrupt. 2. You can import food from abroad lol.[/QUOTE] The states produces a great deal of wheat and corn exports, and importing food from abroad would still require rationing to a certain degree. It also wouldn't be the first time people burned their own crops in protest, neither would it be the first protest with resources being the holding. Either way, you still have yet to explain what powers they have over city-folk.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41530609]The states produces a great deal of wheat and corn exports[/quote] Most of it is bulk goods like corn. I doubt every single farmer (or even a huge number) would be willing to risk bankruptcy and poverty. [quote]Importing food from abroad would still require rationing to a certain degree.[/quote] Most European countries did a lot of food importation from time to time. The only time that rationing happens is during war or communism usually. Also if America suddenly stopped making food (which I doubt), then the Europeans and Indians would probably shit themselves thinking about all the money they would make. [quote]It also wouldn't be the first time people burned their own crops in protest, neither would it be the first protest with resources being the holding.[/quote] People tried this in the Soviet Union and they got shot. During the American Revolution, a similar tactic was employed by the continental army. [quote]Either way, you still have yet to explain what powers they have over city-folk.[/QUOTE] Massive agricultural subsidies go to them, and areas with low populations have the same number of representatives as ones with high population densities. It wouldn't be fair if a politician represented a large area with only 5 landowners, compared to a dense and small city (which has happened in the past, certainly in Europe at least).