I addressed that on page 3.

Parties is a rabbit trail, because we are discussing whether or not people of different cultures and ideologies could be equally represented in your proposed system.

Quote:You speak like there would be more parties, but you haven't cited any data suggesting this would be the case. Even if we take that premise for granted, would it create parties that reflect the culture in various parts of the US and provide ample opportunity for those cultures to have a seat at the White House? A conservative wouldn't care if there were 50,000 new parties formed if it meant that a Republican couldn't get elected again as President. In the same vein, you mention that the flyover states are already ignored, so we can discount that concern. Yet, the flyovers helped get Trump elected. This would never happen again in a direct election. I do not believe either of these are good faith arguments. It seems much more likely that you start with the premise that (x) would be good for democrats, then you twist your reasoning to influence other posters or win a debate. Whether or not it's done out of naivete or purpose, it makes no difference. The end result is the same. 

Who mentioned the federalist papers? Is this the only document I'm allowed to reference. It's in the writings of the founders in multiple places. Fear of mob rule. Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority. Your proposal is a step towards majority rule. Everything was designed with the idea that states, and, therefore, the people within those states, would be able to govern themselves and have some control over their own culture. You don't seem to get this basic "conservative" concept.

Quote:To paraphrase James Madison, if there were a village of 6000 Socrates, the democracy would still end up in mob rule. The point is that it is human nature for people to move towards sentiment and throw reason to the wayside.

---