View Full Version : Left or Right?
What part of the political spectrum are you? Right? Left? Center? or Far left or right? Tell us.
I am far left marxist kind of commie :devil: <-- pinko commie :D
alcimedes
2004-07-19, 20:46
you were missing an option.
A word of preemptive warning: we refuse to let AO become grounds for political bickering. Let's be sure to keep this light-hearted, ok? ;) TIA.
Naderfan
2004-07-19, 20:56
I've always been a commie at heart, although I know realistically the utopia will never happen. But lately, I have found myself leaning towards libertarian, except I just don't share their faith in capitalism. So I'd label myself as a liberal. Which I think may have gotten me in trouble today. I just got a new job as a sales rep for this company and almost everyone there is staunch Republican. So today, our sales manager took us all out to lunch and while we were eating, he turns and asks me "So, do you find yourself leaning more Democrat or Republican?" And without missing a beat, I say "Liberal. I'm disgusted with both parties at this point." He didn't really talk to me the rest of lunch. But this isn't my dream job, so I'm not too worried. I just wonder what he would've done if I had said communist.... :lol:
you were missing an option.
what option?
Edit: Nevermind, I saw the edit.
The last one on the list. Which I added a clarification to, in case anyone here doesn't know what a Libertarian is :p.
Pinko-lefty baby!
I don't really have enough faith in human nature to be a full-blown anarchist, however... an open, egalitarian communist state is more my speed (and no, that's not an oxymoron).
A word of preemptive warning: we refuse to let AO become grounds for political bickering. Let's be sure to keep this light-hearted, ok? ;) TIA.
Political bickering, no, but how about articulately and passionately reasoned political discourse? :) Just what threads are allowed? I think that we are all still feeling our way. That being said, I have been happy with .org/AN since being here, so I guess I am not missing the political debate all that much.
Note: I, by no means, meant for this thread to turn out into a flamefest, I created this thread in order to see what part of the political spectrum people are to get a broad idea of the general views of this forum. Thank you.
Did we leave the right thinking people at .com? In a very nice and joking way . . . while perhaps making a mild connection between apple computer society and politics . . . :smokey:
autodata
2004-07-19, 22:28
Definitely center. Big-time capitalist while at the same time big-time socialist. History shows that some combination works the best. Want very socially liberal government while I am socially conservative. Not religious but I practice vipassana and do all religious ceremonies (weddings, etc) in my Catholic tradition. Regarding the US, I recognize that the republican party has totally lost its way and that, although kerry is a total douche, an administration consists of 20-30 people and those likely to make up a kerry admin have a far better grasp of what our foreign policy needs (recognition that state vs. state model is totally and utterly unrealistic) and likely will not operate solely through propaganda, deception and domestic manipulation. I also do not like radical, quasi-authoritarian regimes in my country, although some, like Mexico's PRI, have created great stability and prosperity.
And here I thought it was a poll on which way our trousers fit.
Color me disappointed.
Windswept
2004-07-19, 23:20
And here I thought it was a poll on which way our trousers fit.
Color me disappointed.
That's exactly what I thought, when I first read the title. :)
alcimedes
2004-07-19, 23:48
we're going to need [irony] tags for your custom title Carol.
stevegong
2004-07-19, 23:55
I've always been a commie at heart, although I know realistically the utopia will never happen.
Who said it will never happen? :) (That that it will never happen is what they teach you in schools in America...you've been brainwashed too!)
Yeah, obviously the American education system is totally fucked and brainwashes students :rolleyes:
I've kind of arrived at my own conclusion that there can't be a utopia. It just isn't possible.
DMBand0026
2004-07-20, 00:32
I'm a righty :)
Republican. Not a fence sitter at all, I know where I stand.
Anyone want to fight about it? ;)
Windswept
2004-07-20, 04:17
we're going to need [irony] tags for your custom title Carol.
:lol:
aggiemacster
2004-07-20, 06:35
i am a righty and not ashamed of it.
(but not one of the religious righty kind of things. i am asian so i don't agree with western religious philosphies)
i have much more faith in capitalism, and i am kinda shocked that u guys r so untrusting in it.
anyways, i believe the best way for an economic system to survive is to find a balance. and its important to know the time for which system thats most important.
btw, just out of curiosity, what do you find most wrong with capitalism?
trailmaster308
2004-07-20, 07:53
btw, just out of curiosity, what do you find most wrong with capitalism?
We don't understand it, so we put it in the "axis of evil" ;)
psmith2.0
2004-07-20, 08:27
I'm right (upper and lower case...) ;)
More conservative than any particular GOP fan/flag-waver (I think most of them are idiots and not truly conservative...I can't think of one Republican politician that truly represents me, or "gets it").
I'm a registered Republican, but that's like saying I'd buy a Molly Hatchet 8-track before I would a Slim Whitman one.
:)
As for the "far right/Bushist" crack, please.
:rolleyes:
Well, he IS pretty far right. But I think there's a big difference between the reactionary conservatives who want to get rid of the New Deal's legacy and ban any and all forms of "indecency," and reasonable and level-headed conservatives who simply think that the government should be small and non-obtrusive to the people. Just as there's a difference between bleeding-heart liberals and those who think that the government should play an active role in assisting the people. Too often, people on one side will stereotype people on the other.
I could live with a conservative president, but Bush and his cabinet seem to transcend that and go into the arena of government control of everything. Ashcroft is targeting people like Larry Flynt and Howard Stern and trying to censor them. Now, aren't conservatives generally supportive of SMALLER government? And wouldn't that naturally mean that the government wouldn't get involved in such matters? See, it just doesn't make sense to me. Although my personal philosophy is pretty liberal and left-wing, I have a lot of respect for conservative viewpoints, as long as they're reasonable. Things like the "Patriot" Act and the Defense of "Decency" Act seem blatantly hypocritical to me. Of course, that's the liberal side of me saying that the government shouldn't legislate morality, but on the other hand, shouldn't a typical conservative be outraged that the government is trying to work their way into every facet of our lives?
I'm actually not really sure. I haven't talked to many conservatives about such issues. Just to make it clear, I'm really not trying to attack anyone, I'm just geniunely curious about what some of the conservatives here think about the points I've mentioned. Am I seeing it the wrong way? Or are you too disappointed in those aspects of the Bush administration?
thegelding
2004-07-20, 08:52
put left liberal...almost far left, but i don't have the time and energy to be as wild as i would like these days
i too outgrew the ideals of "utopia", just would like a nicer world, a little more courtesy and some degree more of imagination and exploration and self-discovery...instead we are getting lazy, fat and bitter (and i'm not just talking about my mother-in-law)
g
and i still like pscates even while hoping rush lapses into a drug induced coma and the bush twins have unwed pregnancies and are caught going in the back door of planned parenthood
ps...took me awhile to read this thread...i just thought it was going to be another "which hand to you masterbate with" thread...i believe the far right leads that poll (pole?) with a "firm" majority
thegelding gently reminds himself that the pun is the lowest form of humor
psmith2.0
2004-07-20, 09:06
and i still like pscates even while hoping rush lapses into a drug induced coma and the bush twins have unwed pregnancies and are caught going in the back door of planned parenthood
You LOVE me. Don't ever forget it. :D
And while I'd be bummed at the loss of entertaining radio (because the rest of conservative talk radio is really, really horrible), I'd manage to move on. As for the Bush twins, they don't even register with me.
They could appear in "College Gangbang Amateurs, Vol. 27" and it wouldn't change anything about me, or what I believe and think. I'm probably laugh my ass off, along with most of you.
:)
Rush, like Keith Richards, is going to outlive us all. Get used to it...
;)
[...]
And while I'd be bummed at the loss of entertaining radio [Rush] (because the rest of conservative talk radio is really, really horrible)....
[...]
We were driving back from our Nova Scotia vacation last week – cutting through Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire – and we were flipping through the radio stations and came across a show with a strong signal called “Savage Nation” – a U.S. national radio talk show hosted by someone named Michael Savage. Holy comeoloy. I had never heard this guy before, or even heard of him. I did not know whether to laugh at him or to take him seriously. If he is to be taken seriously…and he represents any more than a tiny proportion of U.S. public opinion, then the world should be very worried. I am thinking though, that he was largely just trying to joke/shock and/or that he represents the loony fringe. Anyone have any perspective on the guy?
While it was interesting – in an extremely aggravating way – to listen to the guy rant (and it was the best signal we were getting on some of those upstate roads), we eventually turned it off when he kept referring to Arabs as “dirty nightshirts”. Once again, I don’t know if he was serious or trying to joke/shock, but racial comments like that really are not acceptable.
He's for real.
www.MichaelSavage.com
But nutjobs like him comprise a very tiny portion of the population here. There are very, very few people quite that insane. He and Ann Coulter would get along splendidly.
psmith2.0
2004-07-20, 10:20
Helloooo? That's why I said what I said. Told you. Savage, Hannity, Boortz, Liddy, etc. Unlistenable. I can't listen to someone with no humor (that automatically includes Al Franken, who's never been funny a day in his life).
That's why Rush and Phil Hendrie are the only things I'll consider listening to on the radio, that isn't music.
:)
I thought Al was kind of funny in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot, but I couldn't read his Lying Liars book. I think he's gone way downhill, and moved from being ironically funny to not being funny at all. See, in his older book, it seemed like he was trying to play an obvious role as a liberal nutcase in order to make fun of the conservative nutcases he talked about. But in the new one he's just an ass. Couldn't stand it.
He's for real.
www.MichaelSavage.com
But nutjobs like him comprise a very tiny portion of the population here. There are very, very few people quite that insane. He and Ann Coulter would get along splendidly.
I had actually found the website when I returned home, so I knew that Savage was for real. What I did not know – and still do not know - is whether he was serious about what he was saying in the portion that I heard. I got the feeling that that some of it was intended at least half in jest.
That being said, the “dirty nightshirt” comments really bothered me. Even in jest, that sort of thing would not be allowed on Canadian radio. I know in the U.S. they are trying to strengthen broadcasting codes to prevent the errant breast from being revealed or to prevent people from saying words like “crap”. I think that they are concerned about the wrong things. Sex, nudity and the occasional incidental profanity is not a ‘problem’ in any way. The promotion of hatred against racial or ethnic groups is, however, a problem, IMO.
I'm a Liberal Republican who is very much against Bush and his Corporate Religous and Corporate Business owned ideology.
For: small government, gay rights, abortion, well funded and very strong military, the environment and personal and business accountability
against: bloated government, affirmative action, discrimination, religion in government, special interests, partisanship, unions
alcimedes
2004-07-20, 10:48
dude, you're a libertarian. join us. :D
Haha, kretara, you sound a lot like me. Where I come from, someone who holds those beliefs is called a "liberal."
I seriously don't understand this recent Republican obsession with getting the government's hands in everything, though. It seems like we are undergoing another shift in party philosophies - just as Democrats used to be the conservative Southern party, now Republicans are turning into the "big government" party.
dude, you're a libertarian. join us. :D
Indeed. :)
What the hell is it, that so many people think libertarians are far *RIGHT*?!? I have so many liberal friends who think that libertarians are all ultra-right-wing survivalist nuts, when in fact they're much closer to libertarian than they'd ever admit.
OTOH, my entire family thinks that libertarians are all these ultra-far-LEFT hippies that sit around and smoke pot. When again, they're all much closer to libertarian than they'll ever admit.
Ignorant children, all.
Man. This thread rocks. Already on its second page and no personal attacks! Reminds me why I love this place so much. Back at AI, the political discussions were really mean and I felt I couldn't get along with people on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum of me, like SDW2001 and dmz. But here there are liberals and conservatives (and Libertarians ;)), and we're still just shootin' the breeze and having a good time.
<3 AppleNova :)
Haha, kretara, you sound a lot like me. Where I come from, someone who holds those beliefs is called a "liberal."
Well, I identify more (I think) with the republicans.
Here is how my stances appear in the South:
small government: just as long as I can hire my family, you anarchist
pro gay rights = ultra liberal pinko commie fag
abortion = ultra liberal satan worshiper going to hell fool
strong military with mucho $$$ = hell yeaaas, yeah hawwww
environment = as long as we can kill us some deer and ducks and grow our weed we'll get along fine you liberal tool
personal and business accountability = that doesn't fit in any political structure you anarchist
against bloated government = just as long as my family is included you ultra conservative
against affirmative action = right wing neanderthal with KKK leanings
against discrimination = ah, a moderate
against religion in government = our Governor is a preacher you ultra liberal agnostic going to hell fool
against special interests = your friggin McCain wannabe where the hell where I get my campaign money, friggin Conservative
against Partisanship = what the hell does partisanship mean anyway jimbob?
unions = yeah, we got those civil unions right
My wife tells me that I am a liberal but I just can't stand all the social handouts, its the systems fault that you commited a crime so you don't need to take any personal responsibility crap, and tax till my ball hairs fall off stuff that liberals are so fond of.
You know, I was fairly liberal until I spent 8 years in Boston. Man did I become conservative quickly after having to work with Cambridge Ultra Liberals
thegelding
2004-07-20, 11:28
yeah, it is nice to "disagree" with people without thinking they are wrong and you are right...and vice versa
people are allowed to think and act differently
like i think rush is an ass
pscates would like to spoon with him
no biggie as far as i'm concerned
;)
g
Just for the record, I put down, “liberal/democrat”. I am a bit of an old-fashioned "tax and spend" liberal – the type that few politicians will admit to being anymore. I am not against “big government” – I think that big government is inevitable in the complex, dangerous, crowded world we live in. My difference with “big government” conservatives is a dispute – a big dispute – about what the “big government” should be doing.
I’d like to be a small government, libertarian, except that I don’t think that it is a realistic political philosophy. So much of what we do, in so many different areas, affects society at large. If you live in a society, you need rules. The more complex and crowded the society, the more sophisticated the rules need to be. I wish that were not the truth, but I think that it is.
On the other hand, in areas that the government really does not need to be – sex, religion – I do agree that they should butt out. For example, I don’t think that the government should be involved in marriage – in approving it, licensing it prohibiting it (heterosexual or homosexual). All marriage laws should be repealed. Marriage is a matter between the two people involved, and, if they are religious, their church. Marriage itself is not a government matter. However, I believe that people should be able to register their domestic arrangements (regardless of whether they are married, shacking up, living in a non-sexual union, etc.) publicly for the purpose of benefits, etc.
psmith2.0
2004-07-20, 11:34
Put the big ol' wide brush back in your pocket, kretara. I'm in the South and don't that way on any of your points. Nor does anyone I know. We're not all lining up for jobs as extras in the "Deliverance" remake...
:)
And you're right, Luca. This thread, in two pages, beautifully demonstrates the difference between the two sites. Not a cross word, no personal slams, no name-calling, etc. Anything even remotely approaching a jab or whatever is said in obvious jest (or accompanied by a smiley, obviously denoting the intent). And even if it's NOT said in jest, it's not said with spiteful venom and veiled insults. Go take a look, right now, at a current, political-themed thread at .com and tell me there isn't a HUGE difference in tone, behavior, etc.
:rolleyes:
This place does indeed rock. Glad I'm here...
Put the big ol' wide brush back in your pocket, kretara. I'm in the South and don't that way on any of your points. Nor does anyone I know. We're not all lining up for jobs as extras in the "Deliverance" remake...
Much of what I wrote above was for comic relief with a bit of truth thrown in.
I grew up in the South and have spent time in Little Rock, Nashville, Knoxville, Pensacola, Myrtle Beach and Charleston and find that many of my "remarks" do have merit. I also have extensive contact with what might be termed by others as lower class people (poor people) so I have very much heard such things as I wrote from the uneducated class.
Anyway, I'll jump on the pat-our-back wagon and say that this place does rock. I avoided AO on AI because of certain people who not would allow a civilaized conversation to occur without their "useful" input and I am so glad that the people here are as great as they are.
Liberal / Democrat here. Really crossing my fingers for a legit election process this time around... ;)
trailmaster308
2004-07-20, 12:35
Much of what I wrote above was for comic relief with a bit of truth thrown in.
I grew up in the South and have spent time in Little Rock, Nashville, Knoxville, Pensacola, Myrtle Beach and Charleston and find that many of my "remarks" do have merit. I also have extensive contact with what might be termed by others as lower class people (poor people) so I have very much heard such things as I wrote from the uneducated class..
I agree with a lot of what you said in your first post. A lot of the people where I live have those belief's. More so than I care to elaborate on, guess it all depends on what part of the south you live in. Most people where I live don't consider anything East of Mississippi being in the south. For the record I am a liberal/demo living in Louisiana! HELP! ;)
...off to cook my Vienna Sausage (sp??) and watch Nascar :smokey:
alcimedes
2004-07-20, 14:56
well, it's interesting, because i think a lot more people are libertarian than most know. it's just the group happens to split their votes between fiscial policy and social policy.
whenever a big social issue comes up, the group votes that way. when a big fiscal policy comes up, then they tend to vote the other way.
problem is i feel that both parties are starting to abandon their libertarian aligned values. i'm not happy with the democrats pushing all of their RIAA endorsed removal of civil rights, and the strong backing of the patriot act scares me.
then there's the fiscally responsible repulicans who are throwing money around like it's going out of style.
what's a libertarian to do? *cough* Nader *cough*
:D
Yeah, but to the brainwashed masses that think that the two-party system is somehow required by law (no, I'm not kidding, I've met them), a vote for anyone but The Anointed Two is just a vote for whoever they don't like.
It's asinine.
Tiered voting. Break out of your Madison Ave molded political Us vs. Them mindset, and take back your country. Demand more than two parties, and vote your conscience, not Anybody But <Insert McPolitician Here>. That's just being manipulated by the same politicians everyone claims to hate.
</rant>
what's a libertarian to do? *cough* Nader *cough*
:D
Are you sure about that?
*WARNING THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL ANTI-NADER ARGUMENT*
One of the things that bothers me most about Nader is that his candidacy in both 2000 and 2004 are about him and his place in history not about really changing the political climate in America. He is not about creating a sustainable political organization that can have any real impact. He is syphoning votes from people that, if they voted, would have voted for a third party like the Greens or the Libertarians. He could have been a real force for bringing together the disenchanted Left and Right that, as it has been pointed out, often share similar ideals, and create a lasting party. But he has chosen not to do that at all. He runs because he can and because he likes seeing his name in the paper.
He's created a cult of personality and it will eventually bring down his entire organization and set back the goals he is working for. Look at what happened to the Reform Party once Perot withdrew from it. Perot at least had the notion that in order to really make a change, a sustainable broad based party needed to be created. The problem he ran into was that his followers were there because of him and chose not to continue their fight when he withdrew from the party leadership. It left such a tremendous void that the party was not able to continue in any reasonable form and now stands at the same verge of irrelevance as other third parties. The void also allowed Buchanan to swoop in and destroy the party by moving it far Right and pushing out the moderates. Very similar to Nader and the Greens in 2000.
Nader has a larger base of support, more political savvy, but he has forgone those to push himself.
As for me, I consider myself a Classical Liberal. I believe in Liberty, governmental restraint, and a moderated free market economy. I differ from traditional Libertarians insofar as I do not see the government as a necessary evil, but an organization that can be a force for positive change in our country and our world. Similarly, I strongly believe in personal responsibilities, but a safety net when those responsibilities are not met. I don't think that market forces can properly account for individuality and therefore must be coupled with a compassionate government.
As for actually policy proposals, I look at them on an individual basis.
iLikeMyiMacG4
2004-07-20, 16:34
I'm right because....
http://imagebay.org/users/250/18698.jpg
j/k
I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass.
Naderfan
2004-07-20, 18:08
I definitely have respect for Libertarians. Whenever I talk to my republican friends who feel queasy about voting for Bush, I tell them to vote Libertarian. Again, that mind-set of a third party is a wasted voted holds them back. I would be interested to see how the libertarians would do in a theoretical election where the two main parties weren't an option (and assuming people actually knew what the different third parties stood for). I agree, it's time for the U.S. to consider switching to Proportional Representation. But I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. :)
As for the question about why we don't trust capitalism, I can only answer for myself. The thing I fear most about capitalism is that it is based on greed. As a result, we've been brought up to believe that people will only be motivated by their own-self interest and now that is how people act. (Self-fulfilling prophecy type thing.) Also, capitalism always makes me think of the Gilded Age in this country...basically the industrial revolution when capitalism was completely unrestrained. It was a bad time to live, unless you were one of the few people who was rich. But if you actually had to work...it was a miserable life. I know communism doesn't have much better of a record, but that's why I agree with the others who have mentioned that we need to strike a balance. Just my two cents.
As for the question about why we don't trust capitalism, I can only answer for myself. The thing I fear most about capitalism is that it is based on greed. As a result, we've been brought up to believe that people will only be motivated by their own-self interest and now that is how people act. (Self-fulfilling prophecy type thing.) Also, capitalism always makes me think of the Gilded Age in this country...basically the industrial revolution when capitalism was completely unrestrained. It was a bad time to live, unless you were one of the few people who was rich. But if you actually had to work...it was a miserable life. I know communism doesn't have much better of a record, but that's why I agree with the others who have mentioned that we need to strike a balance. Just my two cents.
I agree there with capitalism and the reason you listed, but another reason is that I hate the fact that big corporations and people can profit off others, just for their own benefits, they worship the almighty dollar and don't care for their workers, the enviroment or the consumers, just themselves and to get rich. Communism in practice wasn't communism at all, look at Stalin's regime, and read the Communist Manifesto, you'll learn that Stalin wasn't a communist, hell the USSR wasn't even communist, they were more socialist.
alcimedes
2004-07-20, 20:00
although there are some corporations that care about nothing more than money, that's not all of them by a long shot. small businesses make up a huge percentage of our economy, and there are plenty of large corporations that care about people. Target is an excellent example that comes to mind, i'm sure there are others that people can think of from their home states.
anyway, capitalism doesn't have to be inherently evil, and it's a dangerous mindset to assume that it always is or will be.
Indeed. Communism is a lovely utopian ideal... much like a self-regulating free market.
And the same exact things torpedo both: greed, and secrecy.
A fully transparent capitalistic society, with perfect information to the consumer, is the ideal. A fully transparent communistic society, with perfect lack of personal greed, is the ideal.
Neither are obtainable, in my opinion.
Capitalism at least feeds *off* of a vice: greed. It gets you somewhere, where as in communism, the least little bit can cause an avalanche of corruption. In the long run, I think capitalism is more viable, precisely because it uses a human vice as fuel, and gets people to work harder to try and attain more - communism? Not so much.
But both would need perfect information flow to work well... I think we're getting there as time goes on, but at what cost to personal privacy? *sigh*
Screw it, I'm going to live in a cave.
autodata
2004-07-20, 20:07
I also think there is a lot to the argument that free markets push countries toward liberty. Look at chile after pinochet's reforms. It's certainly not always the case, but it's a good general trend. However, total freedom can have detrimental effects, media consolidation being an example.
BuonRotto
2004-07-20, 20:10
<Insert McPolitician Here>
OPh, so now you got a problem with the Irish, eh, bucko?! ;)
BTW, if you're not sure where you stand, try this little quiz (http://slate.msn.com/Features/040712_RedBlueQuiz/quiz.html). Don't let the ballot confuse you, be sure to line up the holes right. :D
OPh, so now you got a problem with the Irish, eh, bucko?! ;)
Ya dumb mick, that'd be *O'*Politician. Jeez.
Us *Scots* have the lock on Mac and Mc, I ken.
:D
Ah, Celtic rivalries keep the world goin' round.
Stroszek
2004-07-20, 22:01
I voted that I was left. I don't really line up with any of the options, but I was closest with that one.
Case in point: Am I in favor of gay marriage? I'm gay. But I personally think that there should be two types of "marriage":
1) Marriage, sanctioned by the church. The religious leaders get to decide who gets to be married. It's their club after all.
2) Civil unions. For all straight and gay people who don't wish to be married by a church. The same benefits as a marriage, just no religion involved.
Basically, I think that gay people and straight people should have the same opportunity to publically recognize their relationship, but that the government should not be entangled with a religious ceremony.
Will this happen? Nope. So in the real world I call and write my congress(wo)men and vote for people who will help to make gay marriage a reality.
Hypocrite? Perhaps.
psmith2.0
2004-07-20, 22:16
As a gay man and a gay journalist...
;)
any Phil Hendrie fans out there?
I always figured a tax and spend Democrat was better then a cut tax and spend Republican, and I'm still waiting for something to "trickle down" from the 80's! :lol:
(snip)
It's asinine.
Tiered voting. Break out of your Madison Ave molded political Us vs. Them mindset, and take back your country. Demand more than two parties, and vote your conscience, not Anybody But <Insert McPolitician Here>. That's just being manipulated by the same politicians everyone claims to hate.
</rant>
I feel your pain — Australia also has basically a two-party system.
We do, however, have the funkiest single-member electorate voting system out: the preferential ("alternative vote" (http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/What/voting/elec_sys/02.htm#majoritorian)) voting system. Basically, instead of just putting a tick in a box next to your preferred candidate, you put a number in preference. On the ballot count, if no candidate has an absolute majority (50% + 1), the person with the least votes is eliminated, and their preferences are redistributed, until someone has an absolute majority.
The cool thing about this is that I can happily vote 1 Green, vote 2 Socialist Alliance, and then vote 3 Labor (and put the Liberals last), happily knowing that my votes will fall through to Labor, and not actually affect their chance of winning against the Liberals at all — but will at the same time send a message about the kind of issues I find important. I can have my cake and eat it too!
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.