I'm not calling Ryan horrible. I don't agree with wanting to implement medicare vouchers, cutting taxes at the top, etc. That just means I disagree with those ideas. I can also recognize that people who believe those things are what we need to do to fix the country believe those things with their own reasons. I respect a congressman actually trying to get discussion going about the ideas he thinks are right for the country.
99% of our legislators are just dickheads who get elected and then don't even try to achieve any change. They're content to just collect the easiest paycheck in history and barely work and try their best to not rock the boat and get re-elected continuously.
Ryan's budget ideas aren't horrible to me, I just don't think they're the right path. But if he continues to actively try to legislate and gets people on the other side to actually do so too then that's a win.
No, it's not a win, not when his policies will inflict pain and burdens on those least able to handle it. At best, his policies would be a necessary evil if they were the only way to manage the budget in the future. But since that is clearly not the case, his policies would just inflict needless suffering for no benefit.
And I really don't care whether or not he earnestly believes in the gooseshit he's pushing. In fact, he's more dangerous if he is a true believer, as CS Lewis pointed out:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
Finally, people who believe in change for the sake of change should be kept far away from any place where they might affect any change. It is not enough to just feel that "things need to change" - you need to justify why they should.
In short, Ryan's joke of a "budget" is horrible because it would hurt people for no good reason. And once again, you don't get credit for being proactive if you're proactively horrible.
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
Paul Ryan is an anarchist, full-stop. I have never once heard of any idea that he has had that gives me confidence that he knows what in the hell he's doing.
His budget is a joke, and actively damaging in a variety of ways. One of the biggest is that it repeals the ACA.
No it's the most complete and cowardly cop-out 'solution'. Why is medicare going to have solvency issues: The baby Boomers. How do we fix that issue: Fuck over people younger than them.
To treat it like some great moral stand is crap. It's just kicking the can far enough down the road that you'll be dead before you make it to that point.
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
The system's not unsustainable as it is.
Even IF you accept that the system is unsustainable as it is - which is incorrect, but even accepting that premise - the simple solution is to lift or remove the FICA cap.
Or we could go to single payer - aka Medicare for All - and improve outcomes and reduce costs significantly across the board. I'm perfectly happy to accept that as a compromise.
EDIT - After all, if the position is that it's acceptable that the class of people who are < 55 years of age can accept a decreased level of service, I can't understand any objection to expecting the class of people who make the highest 2-3% of income to pay a proportional share for the services they receive.
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
Yes, because the elderly who need Medicare tend to be on limited fixed incomes. Which means that they are VERY sensitive to price changes in their basic necessities.
As for the system being unsustainable as is without major changes, that's on you to prove. And considering how often it's been debunked here, I'd say that you have a long, upward climb to prove the point. You don't get to set your own predicates without challenge.
Paul Ryan isn't an anarchist. Paul Ryan is a man most concerned about being adored.
He plays the part of the "serious person" because in DC that's what gets you the handjobs. But even a cursory examination shows he has no idea wtf he talks about.
It plays into the rest of his image too. The P90X-whatever shit in order to appeal to his own vanity and self-image.
That's why he handed out The Fuontainhead/Atlas Shurgged to all his employees. He's a literal randian "superman". A self-obsessed no-nothing who only cares about personal aggrandisement.
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
The system's not unsustainable as it is.
Even IF you accept that the system is unsustainable as it is - which is incorrect, but even accepting that premise - the simple solution is to lift or remove the FICA cap.
Or we could go to single payer - aka Medicare for All - and improve outcomes and reduce costs significantly across the board. I'm perfectly happy to accept that as a compromise.
EDIT - After all, if the position is that it's acceptable that the class of people who are < 55 years of age can accept a decreased level of service, I can't understand any objection to expecting the class of people who make the highest 2-3% of income to pay a proportional share for the services they receive.
I'm for public option, letting anybody who wants it have Medicare, and let the private sector compete for people who want premium coverage, just like they do now with medicare advantage. But if you talk about that kind of thing, you just get people going hurr durr unicorns, am I right?
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
Yes, because the elderly who need Medicare tend to be on limited fixed incomes. Which means that they are VERY sensitive to price changes in their basic necessities.
As for the system being unsustainable as is without major changes, that's on you to prove. And considering how often it's been debunked here, I'd say that you have a long, upward climb to prove the point. You don't get to set your own predicates without challenge.
There's also little evidence even from Ryan's own numbers that his Medicare changes would actually save significant amounts of money.
and if it was all about saving money why does his budget squander every cent of savings get plowed right back into tax cuts
Look, Paul Ryan And His Budget was the public face of the republican party for like two years running and probably still would be had Boehner not manged to take the lion's share of the credit for this shutdown fiasco. He's not an outlier, he's the guy the party chose to be their primary standard bearer.
The Ryan budget doesn't save much money on medicare because it continues providing service at the current level for anybody currently over 55, which is what the problem is anyway. Medicare being slashed for people who won't even be eligible for 20-30 years is an ideological goal for ryan et al, but not one that has any impact on the actual issue of sustainability.
plus yeah, any money he does save he just removes again as a tax cut. It's the ultimate evidence that nobody actually gives a shit about the deficit.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Look, Paul Ryan And His Budget was the public face of the republican party for like two years running and probably still would be had Boehner not manged to take the lion's share of the credit for this shutdown fiasco. He's not an outlier, he's the guy the party chose to be their primary standard bearer.
The Ryan budget doesn't save much money on medicare because it continues providing service at the current level for anybody currently over 55, which is what the problem is anyway. Medicare being slashed for people who won't even be eligible for 20-30 years is an ideological goal for ryan et al, but not one that has any impact on the actual issue of sustainability.
plus yeah, any money he does save he just removes again as a tax cut. It's the ultimate evidence that nobody actually gives a shit about the deficit.
If the government spends no money whatsoever, there's no reason to tax anybody! Hooray!
99% of our legislators are just dickheads who get elected and then don't even try to achieve any change. They're content to just collect the easiest paycheck in history and barely work and try their best to not rock the boat and get re-elected continuously.
people who say stuff like this are really just admitting that they have no idea how much work it is to actually get into public office.
Yes, okay, you can find a few electeds who got handed a house district because they were somebody's son and decided it'd be fun or have pictures of somebody or whatever. And you can find a handful of been-there-forever types who don't really do anything anymore. But those are much closer to the 1% than the 99.
and considering the demand for the positions, the pay they get is not really that great.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Making people under 55 change to a worse form of medicare because the system is unsustainable as is, is inflicting pain and burden on those least able to handle it? We in the land of hilarious hyperbole now. I don't agree with his budget, but jesus a lot of people on this forum act like the caricatures the right paints of liberals.
The system's not unsustainable as it is.
Even IF you accept that the system is unsustainable as it is - which is incorrect, but even accepting that premise - the simple solution is to lift or remove the FICA cap.
Or we could go to single payer - aka Medicare for All - and improve outcomes and reduce costs significantly across the board. I'm perfectly happy to accept that as a compromise.
EDIT - After all, if the position is that it's acceptable that the class of people who are < 55 years of age can accept a decreased level of service, I can't understand any objection to expecting the class of people who make the highest 2-3% of income to pay a proportional share for the services they receive.
I'm for public option, letting anybody who wants it have Medicare, and let the private sector compete for people who want premium coverage, just like they do now with medicare advantage. But if you talk about that kind of thing, you just get people going hurr durr unicorns, am I right?
No, as a good portion of this forum supports the "Medicare for All" concept. But, that is digressing from the main issue, which is that Congress is not kindergarten, and our representatives do not get a gold star for effort. You don't get points for sticking to your principles and pushing for change if your principles are reprehensible and the change you seek horrible.
He's not an outlier, he's the guy the party chose to be their primary standard bearer.
Man, present-day Republicans suck at this, don't they?
Ryan's favorite band is ostensibly Rage Against the Machine. He is, perhaps, not the most self-aware individual.
Also he obviously skips leg day so fuck him. DO SQUATS MOTHERFUCKER.
I never work out.
but, he rallies around the family....
Right, but he does have a pocket full of shells.
I maintain that Ryan believes that song is about a prize-winning Wisconsin cattle rancher taking his family to the beach and collecting pretty seashells.
I'm not terribly familiar with Buchanan, but everything I read lists him as a "moderate" Republican. If that's actually the case, it's no big surprise the Tea Party is not well-loved on his poll.
I am curious about how long it will take to get rid of the TP in Congress, or if they are actually going to remain a fixture in American politics for the foreseeable future. The system right now is very favorable to extremists in certain districts.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Going by the history of his pants on head E-Mail polls, I can honestly say that I believe he is shaping questions to provide ammo for his intended course of action. With this, he can say that there is no clear consensus on the tea party thing and do what he wants anyway.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The biggest problem with an MMP voting system is that there will always be politicians who cannot be voted out of office. These are the party list politicians, filled by inner circle party members, and since they are not directly elected, they cannot be directly voted out of office.
The other big problem is that these party list politicians can live anywhere. What this means in practice is that these politicians tend to come from the major metropolitan cities, and thus, those cities end up having a higher than expected representation in the government, effectively marginalizing other parts of the country.
The biggest problem with an MMP voting system is that there will always be politicians who cannot be voted out of office. These are the party list politicians, filled by inner circle party members, and since they are not directly elected, they cannot be directly voted out of office.
The other big problem is that these party list politicians can live anywhere. What this means in practice is that these politicians tend to come from the major metropolitan cities, and thus, those cities end up having a higher than expected representation in the government, effectively marginalizing other parts of the country.
I don't really disagree, but:
Party list members can be & have been ousted in the past by new party leadership, and can be voted out of office if they don't get at least 5% of the vote. If they do get 5% or more of the vote, and you really do have a boner for democracy, you should be happy that they get those seats - they're representing a significant minority group in the population.
And, if you think democracy is a good idea, cities should get more representation than unpopulated areas of a country. They're more heavily populated and better represent the interests of the whole population.
The biggest problem with an MMP voting system is that there will always be politicians who cannot be voted out of office. These are the party list politicians, filled by inner circle party members, and since they are not directly elected, they cannot be directly voted out of office.
The other big problem is that these party list politicians can live anywhere. What this means in practice is that these politicians tend to come from the major metropolitan cities, and thus, those cities end up having a higher than expected representation in the government, effectively marginalizing other parts of the country.
I don't really disagree, but:
Party list members can be & have been ousted in the past by new party leadership, and can be voted out of office if they don't get at least 5% of the vote. If they do get 5% or more of the vote, and you really do have a boner for democracy, you should be happy that they get those seats - they're representing a significant minority group in the population.
And, if you think democracy is a good idea, cities should get more representation than unpopulated areas of a country. They're more heavily populated and better represent the interests of the whole population.
Not his point I believe. The issue is that you can't eliminate members from a party because as long as they are near the top of the MP list, they get seats even if all your voters hate them. There's no way to vote specific MP list people out of office, only vote parties out of office.
The biggest problem with an MMP voting system is that there will always be politicians who cannot be voted out of office. These are the party list politicians, filled by inner circle party members, and since they are not directly elected, they cannot be directly voted out of office.
The other big problem is that these party list politicians can live anywhere. What this means in practice is that these politicians tend to come from the major metropolitan cities, and thus, those cities end up having a higher than expected representation in the government, effectively marginalizing other parts of the country.
I don't really disagree, but:
Party list members can be & have been ousted in the past by new party leadership, and can be voted out of office if they don't get at least 5% of the vote. If they do get 5% or more of the vote, and you really do have a boner for democracy, you should be happy that they get those seats - they're representing a significant minority group in the population.
And, if you think democracy is a good idea, cities should get more representation than unpopulated areas of a country. They're more heavily populated and better represent the interests of the whole population.
Not his point I believe. The issue is that you can't eliminate members from a party because as long as they are near the top of the MP list, they get seats even if all your voters hate them. There's no way to vote specific MP list people out of office, only vote parties out of office.
....couldn't that just be the subject of a primary? Like, it doesn't seem an inherent flaw so much as a problem with the specific implementation of it.
Yeah, I think you could do something like that. The central point is that the MP list candidates are beholden not to the voters, but to whatever system puts them on that list. In any MMP system I've seen, it's party leadership that does that.
Other issues with the MMP system not yet touched on are, of course, coalition governments.
Well, the whole point of such a system is to build a coalition government, so it's not really an 'issue'.
And FptP parties do exactly the same thing with members; they're just more dishonest about it. Nobody wants Rob Anders in the Conservative party except Conservative brass who he's buddies with, so they stuck him in Tuscany where he's guaranteed to win every time. Arguably the same is true for Harper - most Conservative people in large population centers don't even like him, but he's in with the party brass, so he gets a seat in Calgary where he's guaranteed to win.
What's the practical difference between picking people who are given automatic seats & picking people who will automatically win a given seat?
Well, the whole point of such a system is to build a coalition government, so it's not really an 'issue'.
Oh, it's certainly still an issue. Because unless you agree that that's a worthwhile goal, it's a problem with the system. And there's plenty of reason not to find it a worthwhile goal. Just because it's designed to do something doesn't mean the goal itself can't be a problem with the design.
And FptP parties do exactly the same thing with members; they're just more dishonest about it. Nobody wants Rob Anders in the Conservative party except Conservative brass who he's buddies with, so they stuck him in Tuscany where he's guaranteed to win every time. Arguably the same is true for Harper - most Conservative people in large population centers don't even like him, but he's in with the party brass, so he gets a seat in Calgary where he's guaranteed to win.
What's the practical difference between picking people who are given automatic seats & picking people who will automatically win a given seat?
Because in a FPTP system, they aren't automatically guaranteed a win. You can say they are practically in many situations, but it's not universal and it's still more then the absolutely nothing you get in a MMP system.
Whether you think that distinction is enough to be meaningful to you or not, it's there.
ITT, desperate apologists for two-party system now claim that there is no such thing as a red or blue seat. 'Oh yeah, that totally is a legit race in Calgary.'
ITT, desperate apologists for two-party system now claim that there is no such thing as a red or blue seat. 'Oh yeah, that totally is a legit race in Calgary.'
ITT The Ender is incapable of dealing with any criticism of MMP and must invent strawmen to keep his psyche from fracturing
Like, seriously dude, FPTP ultimately allows the ability to remove any specific candidate from office via vote. MMP does not. The ease of doing so is on a sliding scale in FPTP, yes. No one has argued against this. What you are missing is that in MMP, there is no scale. Party List MPs are all in safe seats, no matter what. They live or die and owe loyalty only to the party and it's fortunes.
Like I already said, you can think this isn't an issue, but it's there and it's a totally valid criticism of the system.
Claiming it's a difference is claiming that 100% safe seats don't exist and aren't exploited in FPTP. They do exist, and they are exploited. It's why Harper has his seat in Calgary despite having lived in the east most of his life. It's a 100% guaranteed Conservative win, every time, and claiming otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.
I'm not interested in MMP. It has the same fundamental problem as all popular support democratic systems, so
Claiming it's a difference is claiming that 100% safe seats don't exist and aren't exploited in FPTP. They do exist, and they are exploited. It's why Harper has his seat in Calgary despite having lived in the east most of his life. It's a 100% guaranteed Conservative win, every time, and claiming otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.
I'm not interested in MMP. It has the same fundamental problem as all popular support democratic systems, so
*shrug*
Nope. Sorry, I already addressed this. Message the strawman in your head and tell him to read the thread and bring you up to speed.
ITT, desperate apologists for two-party system now claim that there is no such thing as a red or blue seat. 'Oh yeah, that totally is a legit race in Calgary.'
ITT The Ender is incapable of dealing with any criticism of MMP and must invent strawmen to keep his psyche from fracturing
Like, seriously dude, FPTP ultimately allows the ability to remove any specific candidate from office via vote. MMP does not. The ease of doing so is on a sliding scale in FPTP, yes. No one has argued against this. What you are missing is that in MMP, there is no scale. Party List MPs are all in safe seats, no matter what. They live or die and owe loyalty only to the party and it's fortunes.
Like I already said, you can think this isn't an issue, but it's there and it's a totally valid criticism of the system.
I'm having trouble finding an issue where I disagree with a candidate strongly enough to want them ousted but would still vote for a party that protects them to the exclusion of others that would better reflect the party values.
I mean, at that point, you are voting for your 'team' and not the policies you want enacted.
Posts
No, it's not a win, not when his policies will inflict pain and burdens on those least able to handle it. At best, his policies would be a necessary evil if they were the only way to manage the budget in the future. But since that is clearly not the case, his policies would just inflict needless suffering for no benefit.
And I really don't care whether or not he earnestly believes in the gooseshit he's pushing. In fact, he's more dangerous if he is a true believer, as CS Lewis pointed out:
Finally, people who believe in change for the sake of change should be kept far away from any place where they might affect any change. It is not enough to just feel that "things need to change" - you need to justify why they should.
In short, Ryan's joke of a "budget" is horrible because it would hurt people for no good reason. And once again, you don't get credit for being proactive if you're proactively horrible.
His budget is a joke, and actively damaging in a variety of ways. One of the biggest is that it repeals the ACA.
To treat it like some great moral stand is crap. It's just kicking the can far enough down the road that you'll be dead before you make it to that point.
The system's not unsustainable as it is.
Even IF you accept that the system is unsustainable as it is - which is incorrect, but even accepting that premise - the simple solution is to lift or remove the FICA cap.
Or we could go to single payer - aka Medicare for All - and improve outcomes and reduce costs significantly across the board. I'm perfectly happy to accept that as a compromise.
EDIT - After all, if the position is that it's acceptable that the class of people who are < 55 years of age can accept a decreased level of service, I can't understand any objection to expecting the class of people who make the highest 2-3% of income to pay a proportional share for the services they receive.
Yes, because the elderly who need Medicare tend to be on limited fixed incomes. Which means that they are VERY sensitive to price changes in their basic necessities.
As for the system being unsustainable as is without major changes, that's on you to prove. And considering how often it's been debunked here, I'd say that you have a long, upward climb to prove the point. You don't get to set your own predicates without challenge.
He plays the part of the "serious person" because in DC that's what gets you the handjobs. But even a cursory examination shows he has no idea wtf he talks about.
It plays into the rest of his image too. The P90X-whatever shit in order to appeal to his own vanity and self-image.
That's why he handed out The Fuontainhead/Atlas Shurgged to all his employees. He's a literal randian "superman". A self-obsessed no-nothing who only cares about personal aggrandisement.
Dammit, I was thinking of Rand Paul.
We need a one-Paul limit.
I'm for public option, letting anybody who wants it have Medicare, and let the private sector compete for people who want premium coverage, just like they do now with medicare advantage. But if you talk about that kind of thing, you just get people going hurr durr unicorns, am I right?
There's also little evidence even from Ryan's own numbers that his Medicare changes would actually save significant amounts of money.
and if it was all about saving money why does his budget squander every cent of savings get plowed right back into tax cuts
The Ryan budget doesn't save much money on medicare because it continues providing service at the current level for anybody currently over 55, which is what the problem is anyway. Medicare being slashed for people who won't even be eligible for 20-30 years is an ideological goal for ryan et al, but not one that has any impact on the actual issue of sustainability.
plus yeah, any money he does save he just removes again as a tax cut. It's the ultimate evidence that nobody actually gives a shit about the deficit.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If the government spends no money whatsoever, there's no reason to tax anybody! Hooray!
people who say stuff like this are really just admitting that they have no idea how much work it is to actually get into public office.
Yes, okay, you can find a few electeds who got handed a house district because they were somebody's son and decided it'd be fun or have pictures of somebody or whatever. And you can find a handful of been-there-forever types who don't really do anything anymore. But those are much closer to the 1% than the 99.
and considering the demand for the positions, the pay they get is not really that great.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Man, present-day Republicans suck at this, don't they?
Ryan's favorite band is ostensibly Rage Against the Machine. He is, perhaps, not the most self-aware individual.
Also he obviously skips leg day so fuck him. DO SQUATS MOTHERFUCKER.
No, as a good portion of this forum supports the "Medicare for All" concept. But, that is digressing from the main issue, which is that Congress is not kindergarten, and our representatives do not get a gold star for effort. You don't get points for sticking to your principles and pushing for change if your principles are reprehensible and the change you seek horrible.
I think I just burst a blood vessel from laughing so hard.
Thanks for that.
but, he rallies around the family....
I mean, seriously, look at that shit:
It's like the photographer was in on it.
"No, no, not like that. Look more like a .douch ....... more like yourself. Yeah, that's it. Just like that."
Right, but he does have a pocket full of shells.
I maintain that Ryan believes that song is about a prize-winning Wisconsin cattle rancher taking his family to the beach and collecting pretty seashells.
Submitted without comment.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I am curious about how long it will take to get rid of the TP in Congress, or if they are actually going to remain a fixture in American politics for the foreseeable future. The system right now is very favorable to extremists in certain districts.
Hedgie, instant run-off voting is not a proportional representation system. It's FptP, but with a solution to the 'spoiler' effect.
Proportional systems work like this:
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The other big problem is that these party list politicians can live anywhere. What this means in practice is that these politicians tend to come from the major metropolitan cities, and thus, those cities end up having a higher than expected representation in the government, effectively marginalizing other parts of the country.
I don't really disagree, but:
Party list members can be & have been ousted in the past by new party leadership, and can be voted out of office if they don't get at least 5% of the vote. If they do get 5% or more of the vote, and you really do have a boner for democracy, you should be happy that they get those seats - they're representing a significant minority group in the population.
And, if you think democracy is a good idea, cities should get more representation than unpopulated areas of a country. They're more heavily populated and better represent the interests of the whole population.
Not his point I believe. The issue is that you can't eliminate members from a party because as long as they are near the top of the MP list, they get seats even if all your voters hate them. There's no way to vote specific MP list people out of office, only vote parties out of office.
....couldn't that just be the subject of a primary? Like, it doesn't seem an inherent flaw so much as a problem with the specific implementation of it.
Other issues with the MMP system not yet touched on are, of course, coalition governments.
And FptP parties do exactly the same thing with members; they're just more dishonest about it. Nobody wants Rob Anders in the Conservative party except Conservative brass who he's buddies with, so they stuck him in Tuscany where he's guaranteed to win every time. Arguably the same is true for Harper - most Conservative people in large population centers don't even like him, but he's in with the party brass, so he gets a seat in Calgary where he's guaranteed to win.
What's the practical difference between picking people who are given automatic seats & picking people who will automatically win a given seat?
Oh, it's certainly still an issue. Because unless you agree that that's a worthwhile goal, it's a problem with the system. And there's plenty of reason not to find it a worthwhile goal. Just because it's designed to do something doesn't mean the goal itself can't be a problem with the design.
Because in a FPTP system, they aren't automatically guaranteed a win. You can say they are practically in many situations, but it's not universal and it's still more then the absolutely nothing you get in a MMP system.
Whether you think that distinction is enough to be meaningful to you or not, it's there.
ITT The Ender is incapable of dealing with any criticism of MMP and must invent strawmen to keep his psyche from fracturing
Like, seriously dude, FPTP ultimately allows the ability to remove any specific candidate from office via vote. MMP does not. The ease of doing so is on a sliding scale in FPTP, yes. No one has argued against this. What you are missing is that in MMP, there is no scale. Party List MPs are all in safe seats, no matter what. They live or die and owe loyalty only to the party and it's fortunes.
Like I already said, you can think this isn't an issue, but it's there and it's a totally valid criticism of the system.
I'm not interested in MMP. It has the same fundamental problem as all popular support democratic systems, so
*shrug*
Nope. Sorry, I already addressed this. Message the strawman in your head and tell him to read the thread and bring you up to speed.
I'm having trouble finding an issue where I disagree with a candidate strongly enough to want them ousted but would still vote for a party that protects them to the exclusion of others that would better reflect the party values.
I mean, at that point, you are voting for your 'team' and not the policies you want enacted.
MWO: Adamski