To be clear, your 2 points are “Italy only aloocates two thirds of its seats via PR so it doesn’t count!”
It’s either fully proportional or its not.
Basically, of the two of us, I actually read about the world and then think about it.
The “I know more than you” sounds like lazy reasoning at best and arrogant at worst, it goes hand and hand with your ban from !fairvote@lemmy.ca for your dismissive and disrespectful conduct.
You’ve decided that PR is the best because you want people to have more choices at the ballot (which is good) without considering what happens to countries that have tried this.
That’s certainly strawmanning my position as it’s not the only reason why I support proportional representation. I want more accountability, 95% of the vote represented, real progress on issues, friendly compromise and collaboration in our politics.
You’re undemocratic wanting to prevent proper representation the people. You support false majorities claiming they “keep extremists out” when history shows otherwise as extremists have been shown to hijack the big parties. Giving one party all the power with only 39% is morally wrong and reckless. Also the evidence shows that governments are actually more stable under pr.
What, why? All but 20% are proportional, the same coalition and minority governments exist etc. I get you don’t like the outcome but declaring it doesn’t count despite functionally being PR is a weird position.
it goes hand and hand with your ban from !fairvote@lemmy.ca for your dismissive and disrespectful conduct.
Ahhhh, lol. I politely tried to excuse myself but someone from there just wanted to come with increasingly silly and somewhat hysterical “points.” I don’t think the onus is on me to pretend everything being said is reasonable. (If memory serves, someone had read so little about the topic that they called me racist for noting that the Nordic states are homogenous countries, as opposed to say, Canada with the Quebecois/Anglo divide, or Iraq with the Shia, Sunni and Kurd groups.) Although, dang, I wish I could see that thread because some of the stuff OP ended up trying to say was legitimately hysterical. Though I guess I appreciate the ban happened after I said that I said the discussion had reached an impass, that’s at least respectful.
disrespectful conduct.
To be clear, accusing me of being on the side of a mass murderer like Mugabe is fine and respectful but saying you don’t seem to read about the real world isn’t? That’s certainly… A choice.
That’s certainly strawmanning my position
Your “position” is just statements, repeating the same unproven desires that PR leads to “real progress on issues, friendly compromise and collaboration” when time and time again, that’s shown not to be the case which is the fundamental problem with PR. I’ve used multiple examples that show this has not been the case. All you’ve done is say examples don’t count for specious reasons (somehow, only 80% PR means fundamentally different mechanics and a coalition government, the typical outcome of PR means the Kickl isn’t a problem) and then repeat the same hopes for PR. Waving away all the real world examples that you dislike without any particularly good reasons is not a way to demonstrate that you are correct.
What are the differences between statements and points? Consider someone who said capitalism was the best because it delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. And then you went and pointed out those aren’t entirely true using facts, examples etc and their response was “no, those countries have welfare so they aren’t real capitalism” and then just kept repeating that capitalism delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. In this case too, those are just unproved statements that someone wants to be true without evidence being given.
It’s either fully proportional or its not.
The “I know more than you” sounds like lazy reasoning at best and arrogant at worst, it goes hand and hand with your ban from !fairvote@lemmy.ca for your dismissive and disrespectful conduct.
That’s certainly strawmanning my position as it’s not the only reason why I support proportional representation. I want more accountability, 95% of the vote represented, real progress on issues, friendly compromise and collaboration in our politics.
You’re undemocratic wanting to prevent proper representation the people. You support false majorities claiming they “keep extremists out” when history shows otherwise as extremists have been shown to hijack the big parties. Giving one party all the power with only 39% is morally wrong and reckless. Also the evidence shows that governments are actually more stable under pr.
What, why? All but 20% are proportional, the same coalition and minority governments exist etc. I get you don’t like the outcome but declaring it doesn’t count despite functionally being PR is a weird position.
Ahhhh, lol. I politely tried to excuse myself but someone from there just wanted to come with increasingly silly and somewhat hysterical “points.” I don’t think the onus is on me to pretend everything being said is reasonable. (If memory serves, someone had read so little about the topic that they called me racist for noting that the Nordic states are homogenous countries, as opposed to say, Canada with the Quebecois/Anglo divide, or Iraq with the Shia, Sunni and Kurd groups.) Although, dang, I wish I could see that thread because some of the stuff OP ended up trying to say was legitimately hysterical. Though I guess I appreciate the ban happened after I said that I said the discussion had reached an impass, that’s at least respectful.
To be clear, accusing me of being on the side of a mass murderer like Mugabe is fine and respectful but saying you don’t seem to read about the real world isn’t? That’s certainly… A choice.
Your “position” is just statements, repeating the same unproven desires that PR leads to “real progress on issues, friendly compromise and collaboration” when time and time again, that’s shown not to be the case which is the fundamental problem with PR. I’ve used multiple examples that show this has not been the case. All you’ve done is say examples don’t count for specious reasons (somehow, only 80% PR means fundamentally different mechanics and a coalition government, the typical outcome of PR means the Kickl isn’t a problem) and then repeat the same hopes for PR. Waving away all the real world examples that you dislike without any particularly good reasons is not a way to demonstrate that you are correct.
What are the differences between statements and points? Consider someone who said capitalism was the best because it delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. And then you went and pointed out those aren’t entirely true using facts, examples etc and their response was “no, those countries have welfare so they aren’t real capitalism” and then just kept repeating that capitalism delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. In this case too, those are just unproved statements that someone wants to be true without evidence being given.