Lottery winner
Lottery winner
If someone won $500,000,000 in the lottery, what would be the most effective way to spend it to change the political situation in America?
Edit: Asking for a friend. Also; as much as I appreciate the violent suggestions, I’m thinking more positively focused.
You're viewing a single thread.
The fundamental cause of America's problem is the two-party system. If you want to get rid of that you have to switch to a proportional representation system. I would suggest working at the local or state level. I do not know of any organization working on this issue. You would likely have to start one yourself or hire someone else to do so.
If you're genuinely going to do it, any suggestion I make here about specifics would be pointless, as you should do significant research before deciding on what flavor of proportional representation to push and where. But, the key is to adopt a system known for accurate and small party representation. If a party gets enough votes to win a single seat, they should be awarded a single seat. If they get a third of the votes, they should get a third of the seats.
Let me know if you want to talk specifics.
I used to say this too, but living in a multiparty country for 20+ years now (NL) I don’t see it as an advantage when you need to govern so large a country. It sounds like an easy solution until you try to get agricultural and city people to agree, and then now try multiplying it by 50.
Unfortunately, a two-party system will likely work best as you’ll need a common consensus to move the country in a single direction.
Just imagine if all we had were FvD and VVD. Because that's what the US has. You can vote between far right, and regular right.
Yeah, we don't exactly have the best government here right now, but at least we have options. There's a surprising amount of fluctuation in dominant parties over the years, something you'll never see in a two-party system.
You can vote between far right, and regular right.
Unfortunately heading that way in the (dis)United Kingdom as well 😪
Then a one party system would be even better.
There is no such thing as a one party system. I think the word you’re looking for is “dictatorship”.
People seem to want to have more choice, but what they really need to do is choose better.
When I hear “our family always votes…”, that’s where democracy is failed.
Whatever you call it, it's the most efficient way to move a country in a single direction and stick to it, if that's what's important.
Wow. You really don’t care to understand a point other than your own. You want to pivot anyone else’s opinion to meaninglessness, and so I don’t see a need to reply further to a one-note-mentality as yours. Enjoy your holidays and goodbye.
You're saying that choice isn't good and that people need to choose better (perhaps choosing more like you?). Skip the pretense and only have one choice.
I mean, the theoretically best system is a benevolent and wise dictator.
Name one in the modern time.
The guy before me keeps changing my position to secure his point, but no - more isn’t any better than no choice. We have to choose for people with a plan, not a platform, and one that works for all of us and not at the expense of any of us (because one day they’ll come for you).
Regardless of the number of choices that we appear to have, it doesn't matter if the real choices are ultimately made through other means (e.g. lobbyists in the US).
Not sure why the downvotes on OP, it's a reasoned opinion and worthy of discussion.
I think you're saying that if you have too many political parties then the whole system gets watered down so much that nothing happens and the direction of the country can change at any time because there's no unified agenda. Isn't there a system to elect a leader who'd set the agenda and coordinate?
One would hope that through conversation we’d have more reasoned information but it appears camping on a platform is where people go to “win”.
We’ve dozens of parties trying to win to form a coalition, so sheer numbers don’t help. You can easily argue that our politics have grown stale and ineffective here in the recent years, and there’s a growing need for change.
For instance we’ve already had a few elections where a farmers collective party and the far right party have won their elections, but immediately afterwards (sometimes within a day, as in the farmers (BBB)) they’ve abandoned key parts of the platform that helped get them elected. Or their positions are so vile that no other party will work with them.
I’d argue that there are the side effects of taking a position first and wanting change at any cost. This is the cost - only more stagnation.
My point is “more” does not mean “better” - often, it’s just more of the same. Vote for and demand “Better”.
We’ve dozens of parties
We have, not we've
The conjuction doesn't work when "have" is the verb in the sentence
Contraction. Conjunctions are "and", "but", etc.