I don’t suggest that one issue parties would form government. I do suggest however that a one issue party would be part of a coalition and would eventually want their one issue addressed. If a coalition government wanted the votes for an issue they really felt important, they may concede to other issues that they would not otherwise entertain. I know you will say, rightly, that this is what democracy and working with others is all about. My complaint is that it simplifies what governing an entire country entails. I feel it invalidates governance when myopic views are allowed to prevail and striving for one issue can eliminate proper consideration of another for the simple desire to get that one issue passed. I feel this contributes to allowing an ignorant electorate to treat the only thing the care about as a zero sum game where no matter what else is allowed to happen, at least they get their way. I know I overplay this narrative and simplify my concerns but the underlying premise is still valid. To not strive for a more informed electorate and a more broad appreciation of cause and effect does no one any favours.

I’ve always leaned toward ranked ballots as I felt it would be an improvement over a constant over-representation of the conservative mentality in a majority progressive country. Recently there have been posts on Lemmy where people have made good points for proportional representation (PR) but I still have reservations. I agree with a post here about the fact the party ultimately chooses who to appoint to the earned positions and so also agree that it would need to be adjusted with an open list, details to be worked out. My main objection to the PR system though is the rise of many single issue and or myopic platforms for parties that would get representation. My fear would be a party coalition quagmire where issues that should never see the light of day are entertained in an effort to appease the dubious partners. Would we want a Muslim, Christian or Hindu party pushing a particular agenda? Would we want an NRA backed group pushing gun freedom? I feel I could only support PR if there were guardrails put in place to mitigate this type threat. I’ve had someone comment that if that’s what people choose then shouldn’t they have that right? I understand that point but still have reservations. Thanks for prompting this discussion.

It’s a good thing to have control of your border and it’s a good thing to break up and deport criminal gangs. As always, his methods are moronic.

yeh, I should have added that disclaimer, lol.

I don’t know the details of the powers trump would have under a shutdown so I’ll have to reserve judgement on this one. Some of the dems are acting a little shell shocked since this chaos started though so you wonder if they can be useful again.

Smart thinking. All the best in your new life. Germany and europe should be booming for the next few years so hope you can take advantage. Cheers

I hope there’s some security guarentees in the details.
I don’t care about him getting a win. With this aggressive approach he’s going to do a lot of good things. There’s no doubt some of what he’s striving for is a valid target but his methods won’t make it a net positive.

Where are you heading, if I may ask. Is this something you’ve been thinking about for a while or just with recent developments? I’m very disappointed that Canada didn’t immediately start publicly inviting STEM people north and spending lots to create openings and programs.

That covers some Chinese departures over a period prior to trumps policies but there are a lot more nationalities to cover and more recently I would expect the number to increase substantially. Thanks for the info though. I’m sure there’s more movement to come.

Are they though? I haven’t seen many stories about it but would entirely expect this to be the case. Especially because many are suddenly unemployed.

If the choice is having them help your “enemy” or subjecting them to personal trauma, which do you think they’ll choose?

His thoughts are definitely not mainstream and in this case he’s giving too much credit to a healthy diet, but damn if I don’t agree with some of the things he says. I’d love to know the truth of his sources. Here’s an interview he did before the election.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/-we-re-living-in-a-weird-period-of-history-full-rfk-jr-interview-190800453748

How long before they’re not allowed to leave?

Sure, MRNA is proof the guberment is trying to poison you but the hormonal problems caused by plastics that increase the numbers of people you hate is just fine. It’s tiresome.

This is what we call “hedging your bets”.

I had a brief look and confirmed this is similar to our property taxes in North America. The exception being that it is tied to net worth and not just the value of the property. Overall that might mean you pay more but it depends on your wealth and the rate the canton charges. Interesting though, thanks.

I hadn’t looked closely at that. I’ll have a look, thanks.

I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I’d vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers

No genocide. We’re already seeing population reduction around the world that is being offset by immigration. With a coordinated effort we could accomplish a lot through attrition. Stop being so melodramatic.

I agree and am not opposed to PR. I only worry about the fracturing of the electorate.