Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-2005, 05:28 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections. Proportional representation systems just insure gridlock and instability. A look at the number of times the Italian governing coalition has fallen since WWII illustrates this point nicely. And what happens in those situations is that the effective power of unelected bureaucrats is magnified.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-30-2005, 06:18 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in (most) tournaments. And in cash games, the next game is only minutes (not years) away, and the "winner" doesn't win "all", he only wins all of the pot. Big difference.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-31-2005, 12:52 PM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 462
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's good for poker, it must be good for elections??? Brilliant.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.