Doc wrote:Alright man, you figure it out. You all seem to have the perfect voting system in mind. I thought I was being OVERLY clear with what I was saying- I have already written my share of this thread, and said what was on my mind. I don't see what is so incredibly hard to understand about it, unless the goal is just to debate the matter into the ground...
At this point, if I add anything in response to your vivisection of my comments, I'll just be repeating myself without any additional clarity, so whatever...
Your proposal was very very clear. There was only 1 thing I didn't understand, and it wasn't a part of the detailed proposal you outlined; it was a separate idea. I actually quoted what exactly I didn't understand. There is no need for you to act like that. I swear, you rush to reply to something even before you read it. If you even scroll back and read the posts thoroughly, you'll see that the idea to have a GA with 2 delegates from each country was already discussed, and the person who proposed it had agreed with the criticism raised against it (and went on to withdraw it).
Siggon Kristov wrote:Doc wrote:Why not just go with a simple majoritarian system, with indirect democracy. Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates for the SG slot, and the GA would vote on that, not the Parties or the nations or the continents...
See, I don't clearly understand what you mean by "Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates" - who is this person? What do you mean not the parties or nations?
This is all I asked you to clarify.
If you intend to just ragequit the discussion again, and blame me for your departure, make it less messy and less dramatic this time.
(And please don't write some 3000-word post to respond to this one line.)