Different political systems

[frigidweirdo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

 

[Missourian]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

So the big question.....are you packed and which one of those countries with their great systems are you moving to? I'm sure many of us will help you move.

 

[Two Thumbs]

while I'm all for dumping the EC, the idea of copying a system, that has nothing to do with ours, is ignorant.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

From what I have seen of his posts, Venezuela or Cuba would be more to his liking.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

This argument has been thrown about a lot, and never, EVER proven to be the case.

The population size of California and New York is 40 million and 20 million. That's 60 million out of 320 million. That's less than 1/5 the size of the US. There's no way 1/5 the population gets to control in Proportional Representation.

Firstly, when California votes for president, ALL the votes go for the Democrats. This after the fact that 31% of people voted for Trump. With PR, 31% of people in California's vote would go towards Donald Trump.

This means California would be giving 8.7 million votes and New York 4.5 million votes, or 13.2 million votes out of 131 million voters. That's 10% of the vote. It'd never get to the point where they control everything. Seeing as they make up 20% of the country's population.

Now, it's funny how you say "You're fine with.... 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be" when the Electoral College system means that 12 states decide who the President is. When the PR vote would actually make things BETTER.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

Oh, wow, this argument again.

Here's the analogy.

A man works for a company. He says to his boss "hey boss, if we do this, we can make more money" the boss says "well you're free to go to those companies".....

 

[Auld Phart]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

This argument has been thrown about a lot, and never, EVER proven to be the case.

The population size of California and New York is 40 million and 20 million. That's 60 million out of 320 million. That's less than 1/5 the size of the US. There's no way 1/5 the population gets to control in Proportional Representation.

Firstly, when California votes for president, ALL the votes go for the Democrats. This after the fact that 31% of people voted for Trump. With PR, 31% of people in California's vote would go towards Donald Trump.

This means California would be giving 8.7 million votes and New York 4.5 million votes, or 13.2 million votes out of 131 million voters. That's 10% of the vote. It'd never get to the point where they control everything. Seeing as they make up 20% of the country's population.

Now, it's funny how you say "You're fine with.... 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be" when the Electoral College system means that 12 states decide who the President is. When the PR vote would actually make things BETTER.

But it would take 30-35 states to overcome the lead NY and Ca would have..

and we barely got 30 this last time, and still lost the popular vote.


the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt would be left out of any chance to make a difference.

no doubt, that makes lame brain libs happy as hell

 

[Auld Phart]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

Oh, wow, this argument again.

Here's the analogy.

A man works for a company. He says to his boss "hey boss, if we do this, we can make more money" the boss says "well you're free to go to those companies".....

and the boss is right

 

[Mousterian]

The idea that we should keep right on doing what we've been doing the last 200 years has given us a president with the mentality of a preschool bully, reviled and derided by our erstwhile allies, and a laughing-stock in diplomatic circles.
Time for a change, I think...

 

[OKTexas]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

See Article 5, good luck.


.

 

[Pogo]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

How does the old adage go --- "if you keep on doing what you've always done --- you'll keep getting the results you always got". Something like that.

Some ideas succeed, some fail. One that always fails is shrugging one's shoulders and giving up.

 

[Pogo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

This argument has been thrown about a lot, and never, EVER proven to be the case.

The population size of California and New York is 40 million and 20 million. That's 60 million out of 320 million. That's less than 1/5 the size of the US. There's no way 1/5 the population gets to control in Proportional Representation.

Firstly, when California votes for president, ALL the votes go for the Democrats. This after the fact that 31% of people voted for Trump. With PR, 31% of people in California's vote would go towards Donald Trump.

This means California would be giving 8.7 million votes and New York 4.5 million votes, or 13.2 million votes out of 131 million voters. That's 10% of the vote. It'd never get to the point where they control everything. Seeing as they make up 20% of the country's population.

Now, it's funny how you say "You're fine with.... 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be" when the Electoral College system means that 12 states decide who the President is. When the PR vote would actually make things BETTER.

But it would take 30-35 states to overcome the lead NY and Ca would have..

and we barely got 30 this last time, and still lost the popular vote.


the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt would be left out of any chance to make a difference.

no doubt, that makes lame brain libs happy as hell

This lame argument has never --- ever --- made a lick of sense. One of these lines put out with an inflection of "well of course it would work like this". It wouldn't. You actually believe that the POPULAR vote in California and New York (or in Texas or Alabama) --- was unanimous??

The fact is, take the last election for example, Rump got X million (not worth looking up the exact number) of votes from Californians and from New Yorkers, whose votes were just thrown on the shitpile, not counted at all. And there have to be many more who didn't bother to go vote because they KNEW their votes would be tossed.

That's the direct fault of the EC "winner take all" system, and it's also why our election turnout is an embarrassing 55%. Because for millions upon millions of voters, there's no point in showing up at the ballot box at all. And for those where the state is supposedly "close", whoever comes out with one vote under the majority--- their votes are tossed in the shitcan too. And there's no way to justify that.

Make every vote count on the other hand, and we'd have an entirely different election

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

This argument has been thrown about a lot, and never, EVER proven to be the case.

The population size of California and New York is 40 million and 20 million. That's 60 million out of 320 million. That's less than 1/5 the size of the US. There's no way 1/5 the population gets to control in Proportional Representation.

Firstly, when California votes for president, ALL the votes go for the Democrats. This after the fact that 31% of people voted for Trump. With PR, 31% of people in California's vote would go towards Donald Trump.

This means California would be giving 8.7 million votes and New York 4.5 million votes, or 13.2 million votes out of 131 million voters. That's 10% of the vote. It'd never get to the point where they control everything. Seeing as they make up 20% of the country's population.

Now, it's funny how you say "You're fine with.... 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be" when the Electoral College system means that 12 states decide who the President is. When the PR vote would actually make things BETTER.

But it would take 30-35 states to overcome the lead NY and Ca would have..

and we barely got 30 this last time, and still lost the popular vote.


the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt would be left out of any chance to make a difference.

no doubt, that makes lame brain libs happy as hell

Would it? No, I disagree.

The main reason I disagree is because a new political system would open up new parties and it would encourage positive voting.

So, new parties would emerge, giving people more choice. California would not longer be Democrat all the way. Chances are the the Democrats and Republicans would struggle to get 50% of the seats in any single state.

The Bible belt might get itself a party that would then form a coalition with other parties to see if it could get into power.

Let's look at some statistics to show how change would be an almost certainty.

In the US presidential elections the main two parties gained 94.3% of the votes.

In Germany they got 67% of the votes. The top party had to form a coalition.

In Albania (with PR) the top two parties got 76% of the vote, but the top party didn't have enough to

In Argentina the top two parties gained 34% of the vote. The top two coalitions gained 58% of the vote.

Chances are the US would have the Republicans and Democrats forming coalitions with other parties in order to be able to serve as the govt. This leads to more sensible govt for a start.

It would literally change politics, the whole partisan fight would be weakened and diminished.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

How does the old adage go --- "if you keep on doing what you've always done --- you'll keep getting the results you always got". Something like that.

Some ideas succeed, some fail. One that always fails is shrugging one's shoulders and giving up.

The problem is many people say no to PR or another way because they assume it'll just be the same, and yet they don't bother looking at other elections with PR.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

I agree that the electoral college is no longer needed, but I don't agree that the French or German system of selecting a national executive are better. I do agree that they are different from the U.S.' system.

• The Electoral College

The short of things today is that an electoral college win basically requires a candidate/party do one thing better than its opponent(s): get people into the voting booth. The way to do that is to have a charismatic nominee. That end, entertainers have a huge "leg up" in comparison to the "typical" geek who may indeed have better quality ideas about governance and public policy.

Putting that in card players' parlance, "It's better to be very lucky than to be very good."

 

[cnm]

Our system is similar to Germany's. It is much better than FPTP in constituency seats, as every vote counts now. Before the switch to the current MMP system I never had a vote that counted as I was in safe seats.
One party once received 20% of the vote and not a seat in Parliament. Now, no one complains at the result of an election, they just get on with it as the result obviously represents the view of the majority of the electorate; and the horse trading to form a government, if necessary, is transparent.
If a government or coalition party does not fulfil its election promises it's easy to punish it at the next election, safe seats don't exist any more.
Much more representative, which surely is the purpose of a representative government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

I agree that the electoral college is no longer needed, but I don't agree that the French or German system of selecting a national executive are better. I do agree that they are different from the U.S.' system.

• The Electoral College

The short of things today is that an electoral college win basically requires a candidate/party do one thing better than its opponent(s): get people into the voting booth. The way to do that is to have a charismatic nominee. That end, entertainers have a huge "leg up" in comparison to the "typical" geek who may indeed have better quality ideas about governance and public policy.

Putting that in card players' parlance, "It's better to be very lucky than to be very good."

Well I have thought about other ways of doing things. For example instead of voting for a leader, why not vote for leaders? Switzerland has a 7 person executive. The US executive is so full of people who do these jobs, why shouldn't they be directly elected.

Imagine minister for education. They run on a platform of how much money they want, and they are given this money. This money is taken directly from taxes, so that people know that they're going to have to pay for this, and the minister cannot get more money from Congress unless Congress wishes to give it to them.

But it would require a Congress that actually has proper oversight, which requires more than two parties.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our system is similar to Germany's. It is much better than FPTP in constituency seats, as every vote counts now. Before the switch to the current MMP system I never had a vote that counted as I was in safe seats.
One party once received 20% of the vote and not a seat in Parliament. Now, no one complains at the result of an election, they just get on with it as the result obviously represents the view of the majority of the electorate; and the horse trading to form a government, if necessary, is transparent.
If a government or coalition party does not fulfil its election promises it's easy to punish it at the next election, safe seats don't exist any more.
Much more representative, which surely is the purpose of a representative government.

You're in New Zealand?