This is false. Gerrymandering prevents any such attempts form working.There is an option, work to change the system, all you need is enough people to support your position.
"Enough people" is a far cry from "a majority of people".Rebellion is no better option because you still have to gain the support of enough people to support your position.
The only issue that affects rebellion is whether or not the status quo is bad enough that it is worth risking one's life in order to change it vs. Whether or not people think the status quo is good enough to think it is worth risking their life to preserve it.
If the former outweighs the latter, violent rebellion can be successful without having anywhere close to majority support.
To explain using the choosing a direction analogy. If there are 20 people making the choice, and 11 decide on one direction, but only 1 of them is actually willing to kill and die to support that choice while 6 of the 9 who voted differently are willing to kill and die to support their choice, rebellion is easily achieved despite only having 30% in favor of it.
It may be more difficult to convince 2 people to change votes than it is to rebel.
They are better represented because their systems are one's that allow them to be better represented. Simple as that. Whether I agree or disagree with their politics has no bearing on a simple analysis of representation.I think maybe why other countries seem better represented to you, is that many other countries people are more enlightened than Americans. When we are as enlightened as other people, so will be our representative government. Americans are pretty far to the right politically compared to most of the industrialized world. Its not surprising to me that our representative government reflects this.
The reason they seem more enlightened to you is simply because you tend to agree with their politics. Don't allow subjective agreement with tehir politics to cause you to ignore a systemic issue in our own government.
Even if the majority of people in the US were more enlightened by your standards, our government would remain one that has low representation unless there were major systemic changes employed regarding our election system.
Enlightenment has no bearing on the fact that the system is designed so that it is less representative.
Yeah, you said that. You failed to do a single thing to support that idea, but you certainly said it.I've already noted that voter apathy hinders democracy.
I, however, have demonstrated how our system is not a representative one and that these systemic problems are the root cause of voter apathy.
And one of the most important things I learned in government class was that the US isn't really a democracy.One of the most important things I learned in Government class was that Democracy is not a lazy man's government, it requires active participation to work, and sometimes that involves protest.
Do you actually think that this helps your position? The part I have bolded should be a clear indicator that it doesn't.If more people had voted for Gore in enough states, that would not have been the case.
Depends on the country.How did the other countries you prefer get to multi-party representation?
In many cases, the same way we got to our minimally-representative system: violent rebellion.
In others, they created/adopted a new form of government based on proportional systems.