Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 08:00:32 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guess we've lost the server market too...? Message-ID: <4.1.19990305074539.00c10db0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19990305093653.B38288@bitbox.follo.net> References: <4.1.19990304165819.04049340@localhost> <Your <19990303131235.A1022@netmonger.net> <41919.920485707@zippy.cdrom.com> <4.1.19990304165819.04049340@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:36 AM 3/5/99 +0100, Eivind Eklund wrote: =20 >On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 05:00:16PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: >> Alas, as the American political system shows, the public actually >> resists having more than two choices. It's "one, two, too many." > >Wrong. The US political system is fu^H^Hrigged from the start to >create two parties. This is the effect of having a forced choice of >one representative from each area; "winner takes all". It also forces >the two parties to be very much like each other. I've always believed >that this was a deliberate choice by the founding fathers, choosing >stability over having the political system match what the people >actually believe. Not so. There is nothing inherent in the works of the Founding Fathers that mandates or even encourages a two-party system. That system was later enshrined in law by other legislation (such as that relating=20 to elections and campaign funding) but not by the Constitution itself. [SNIP] >The result of the above system is a division similar to this (numbers >are from memory, so bear with me that they're not accurate): > >Arbeiderpartiet (~25%) >Fremskrittspartiet (~19%) >H=F8yre (~16%) >Kristelig Folkeparti (~13%) >Kystpartiet (1 representative) >R=F8d Valgallianse (1 or 2 representatives) >Senterpartiet (~15%) >Sosialistisk Venstreparti (~10%) >Venstre (~3%) Could you translate these names? I only know enough Norwegian to be able to figure out what a few of them are -- mainly via German or=20 English cognates. >... with the governing power held by a coalition of Venstre, Kristelig >Folkeparti, and Senterpartiet. > >The reason that Arbeiderpartiet isn't governing (either in minority or >in coalition with somebody else) is that they refused to take the >responsibility unless they got some certain minimum number of votes. > >The reason Fremskrittspartiet (a populistic/liberal party, the one >that is most similar to the US parties) isn't in the governing >business is that nobody would cooperate with them. If they're anything like EITHER of our parties, I don't blame them. I am not registered with a political party here in the US, because I cannot find one that appears to exercise good sense, foresight, and=20 moderation on even a fraction of the issues. Ironically (and, I might=20 add, as a result of laws which institutionalize the two-party system into the government). this reduces the power of my vote by more than 50%. Thus, the principled person who does not believe that a choice between only two menu items is a real choice loses out. My theory is that there is a Newtonian "action and reaction" principle at work here. All political systems tend to adjust themselves, within the framework allowed by the Constitution or other fundamental rule set, to minimize the public's ability influence them. All of this is severe topic drift, though. My original point is that most consumers of software, like voters, want no more than a binary choice.= =20 So do most developers when targeting platforms. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990305074539.00c10db0>