Firstly you were not banned for that post. That was just the most recent post. 

You're practically describing sealioning, which is widely considered to be trolling. 

Merriam-Webster: sealioning

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.

There's a difference between

- asking someone genuine questions and caring about what their answer is. You know actually wanting to be part of the discussion and wanting to learn about someone's perspective

- just incessantly asking questions that you don't care about. This is generally considered trolling/harassment. And being polite is generally considered to be part of sealioning.

You were not banned for being conservative, you were banned for how you conducted yourself.

There's nothing wrong with safeguards, I never said there was. Safeguards like term limits, multiple houses that laws have to pass through, limits on what laws can/can't be enacted (without perhaps a referendum or something) are all good things.

Banning people from even running because of their opinion isn't a safeguard though. It's just fundamentally anti-democratic.

Major problems are:

1. Electoral college - takes the presidential vote away from the people and arbitrarily puts it in the hands of a few hundred unelected electors. It's just a corruption of the whole process. EC allows the loser to win the presidency, which should never happen. EC needs to be abolished.

2. Gerrymandering - when district redrawing is a political process it can't be a fair a process. The corruption of gerrymandering has been taken to an extreme by Republicans and they are not using it to stay in power despite being the minority party. Drawing districts needs to be taken away from the political parties.

3. The two party system - Having two parties in complete control breeds corruption and the status quo. We need to change the way elections are counted to allow for more than two parties (so voting third party isn't just throwing away a vote). Let's make parties less powerful and design a system that allows for more than two parties.

4. Education, culture, the Republican party - Fox News and Republicans, right wing extremism which is all that exists of the Republican party these days are leading us into a propaganda world where education is looked down on, science is looked down on, diversified culture is looked down on, facts and truth are disregarded and looked down on, medicine is looked down on, our history is looked down on and is viewed as something to hide and ignore. Nearly half the country buys into whatever extreme propaganda right wing media and repubican politicians are spewing, and they hate anything and anyone who goes contrary to the propaganda. Republicans are hell bent on turning America into Russia with a one-party minority rule government where everything is done for the purpose of corruption and power, where taking away rights from people and limiting liberty and unequally enforcing laws based on political views is the way everything operates. Republicans are literally killing America and democracy, and then blaming everything they do on Democrats. Having a working government and a just nation and a viable democracy is impossible when one of two parties is hell bent on corrupting and obstructing every policy, democracy/elections, the truth, culture, education, media, the law, and the constitution. Conservative mass extremism is the biggest threat to America and American democracy and the only way this country pulls itself out of its current funk is if modern republicanism completely dies.

People talk about multiple parties but I have no experience with that. How's that work in England?
I don't quite know what the green party stands for, but the libertarian party is just insane. Their beliefs are not designed for groups of people it would simply be a disaster.

And the problem with "splitting up" the parties is that a smaller party is worse off than a larger one. For example in 2016 the green party candidate siphoned enough votes from enough elections that she asked as a possible spoiler and threw the election. Or for example the "freedom caucus". A hard right-wing faction with in the republican party in the house. They tanked a lot of republican bills because they weren't far right enough. Resulting in them not passing.

I'd say we'd have to start with rank choice voting. That way you can organize your votes. It makes it much harder for a third candidate to "steal' an election from 2 others.

Followed by more voting laws. Like having the day off to vote.

England (or rather the U.K) is a bad example to compare, because it also has two major national parties, like the U.S, and for the same reason -- single member districts + first-past the post. This process is called Duverger's Law. Now in the U.K there are significant minor parties because it doesn't have a presidential system that sort of amplifies Duverger's law as a nation-wide winner's take all contest. This allows for the two major parties in any district or constituent country in the U.K to be different from the two major parties in another district and the two most powerful parties nation-wide. So you have the SNP (Scottish National Party) being a major party in most of Scotland, and there were many districts in England where the Liberal-Democratic party was a major party(until recently.) But for the most part, the U.K is still very much a two-party system as only two parties have a real chance in having majority power (Conservative Party and Labour Party.) 

The U.S also used to have significant minor parties/factions. For example in many regions in the early 20th century the Farmer-Labor Party was the dominant party, until it merged with the Democratic Party. Or you can think of the 1860 U.S presidential election as a four-party race. But the long-term tendency in both the U.K and U.S is toward two very much dominant parties. 

Other countries in Europe have different electoral systems which make multiple parties more viable. This is because they utilize multi-membered districts, mixed-member proportional voting, direct proportional voting via a party list (see: D'Hondt's method ,first invented by Thomas Jefferson ironically) , single-transferable vote, ranked-choice voting, etc., or a combination of these for different races. Depending on the specific system there might be a tendency towards many, many small parties, or two - four large parties and various small parties that assemble around them to form coalitions. Think of the coalitions as the equivalent of the Republican and Democratic Parties, except they form after rather than before the elections, and the factions forming the coalitions are far more ideological-based rather than interest-based. 

Wow that's really involved.  I do see you mentioned ranked-choice voting.  I think that has to be the first step. It allows multiple choices without much consequence.

One of the varieties of ranked choice voting would be a good idea for the presidential and senate races, which are inherently single-member districts.

Personally, I think the House of Representatives should adopt mixed-member proportional. 

The Senate should also be weakened to be comparable to something like the U.K House of Lord's. 

Since I can't access the Twitter thread, and this was brouht up here:

Hey mates, I don't just mean people blatantly exposing their intentions. I also mean anti democratic agents who take actions to undermine democracy while saying so. People like Trump. And I think ultimately stopping anti democratic forces from even participating is more democratic than letting them reign free. As I said, your freedoms end where another begins. You will be dooming your future selves and your descendants to tyranny and non democracy if you don't stop anti democratic forces in your current time. Thus restricting your choices to only democratic politics that is people who still fundamentally believe in democracy and don't wanna destroy it is vital. People like Imran khan, Trump, etc should be stopped for running once they show their anti democratic hands. That is basic safeguarding. I was using the most cartoonish out there example to make a point. Ultimately in a time dependant timescale, absolute democracies are less democratic than democracies with proper safeguards. The wainwright Republic fell to the nazis because it didn't have proper safeguards. And US will fall as well to fascism if it does nothing.

I don't think that's how it works. Banning people from being elected is a great chance for abuse: if at some point you do end up with someone undemocratic in power anyway, there won't be a democratic way to remove them from power anymore, since they can just decide that their opponents are undemocratic and thus unable to be elected. And even if you don't get that far, you can still be subtle enough to not be anti-democratic enough to get banned from elections. I don't think there's simply a way to effectively ban anti-democratic people from elections and positions of power without opening huge gaps for abuse of power, which is even worse than allowing those people to be elected. The way I see it is that there's two bad options, and the one that's common in democracies is the less bad one (just like democracy is compared to other forms of government).