Political radicals..

@Elessar But a part of our governement crissis are caused by actors that are malignant in some way. It's the actor that at some point behaves in a certain way that we, according to our morality, label "malignant". I don't think it's inherent to anny of the 2 parties considering the diverse nature of those parties.

I don't think the parties are stagnant persé, but society as a whole seems to be. And that reflects itself in slow progress because there is still a need in this system to search for consensus. In a 2 party system btw, if the party was homogenous and more united, then it would be a lot easier in that system to pass legeslation then in one of ours, because one party can just get a majority on all toppics that doesn't need a excessive majority to pass legeslation. In theory, it should be able to work quicker if one party has the house and the senate.

@Kwek00 In a way, but such actors once generally perceived as malignant tend to lose relevance or at the very least chances of being in a majority coalition (and any coalition that would pick them up would risk losing votes over other coalitions/parties even in the very same political area/side). Think of Berlusconi here, or possibly Renzi being the next one - at most they can found new parties and/or put a dummy in the leadership of such parties - all actions that anyway lead to more mutability than an FPTP system would allow for (and still never gives them the percentages they'd hope to get, at most keep them afloat for a while). Also, with the fact that people express votes for single parties, with each of these parties usually focusing on a limited subset of each political side/area allows for much better representativeness. And the fact that if they go astray in their promises, they risk not being around at the next term, unlike a superparty that sooner or later will get re-elected (I don't think the American GOP is going to disappear, even after Trump, for saying).

About homogeneity, I suppose that applies to coalitions of ours as well, reason why I fear the rightwing is going to win at our next elections, and could do so even without its propaganda machine because the so called "left" is a messy aggregation of divisive forces.

@Elessar Depending on how big their voterbase is, people can loose relevance. And if their voterbase after a scandal diminishes significantly, then these politicians are ussually shred into little pieces by all the other pirahnas that want to recruit the voters for their own base.

However, if a figure comes into a scandal, and their voters don't turn on them. These people will still have a lot of power in the political arena. This isn't diffrent in anny of the voting systems. It just depends on what the voters do and how the voters react to information. In a proportional system, politicians that do all kinds of acts you might not agree with and are appalled about can still play the game for a long time as long as their voter base doesn't turn on them.

In the super party, these individuals still have to win their own district. If the district turns on them, they won't hold office. They first need to survive the primairies for the nominee to run against the other party. And then they have to run against the opposition. So even there, there are a lot of checks and balances. While in a proportional system, being on a list on place number 4 can still get you elected if enough people vote on the party list in that district.

Are you also going to talk about "the left" now... It's kinda normal that they don't like eachother, it's a big chunk of the spectrum. I thought we were trying to get away from these binairy ideas.

@SapphicHeart Also, she's insanely corrupt; you should see her OpenSecrets page.

@BlueVeins
I'm still not sure how your hatred against Pelosi fits into this post, nor whom of the two female politicians you're quoting. I guess it's not worth mentioning as you got to push your agenda against Pelosi more than anything else. Have a nice one!

@SapphicHeart the one who's anti-pelosi lmao, see the picture above. i'm not "pushing an agenda", you asked & I told you. Is that clear enough for you?

@Bad4U literally not what I’m saying.

But I can’t stop you from interpreting it that way.

@JoeyFoxx you dont get it.. dont embarass yourself further, this is just awkward

@Bad4U no sweetie, it’s you that doesn’t get it.

@seeandhear exactly. Where does it say we have to choose among radicals?

@PervertedPrincessOfDeath
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAZhtT-dUyo]