Different political systems

[cnm]

Yes. Aotearoa.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. Aotearoa.

I don't know anything about the New Zealand system, but I have the feeling that most first world countries have a system better than the US system.

 

[cnm]

I don't know anything about the New Zealand system, but I have the feeling that most first world countries have a system better than the US system.

Over 200 years out of date by the look of things. Any time a government can be formed without at least a plurality of votes there's going to be trouble.

 

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I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.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

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.

Did you at all look at the document I shared? It's not that I don't appreciate the idealism of your idea. It's that you've presented it without addressing the factors that make the idea ineffectual, that make it merely "pie in the sky." That was fine when I was 16, perhaps even when I was 26. At 60 and with others more or less of the same age and experience, I haven't much will to suffer it, for as that line of discussion and pondering goes, it's rather "been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and it's long since worn out, and now we need to move on to leather soled shoes, collared shirts and sport jackets."

The reason why not, at least right now is not because the notion is bad; it's not. It's just not presently implementable, and the thing that makes it be not effectual is clear: parties. Thus my criticism here has nothing to do with the merits of the posited end, but rather with the fact that along with your nobly idealistic end, you've proposed no action plan for effecting it. The best ideas in the world are useless if one has no way to bring them to fruition.

• Nikola Tesla’s 5 Lost Inventions That Threatened The Global Elite
  
• The Rise and Fall of Nikola Tesla and his Tower | History | Smithsonian

One need only consider Nicola Tesla's story to see why. Since the Revolution, the only way that's ever succeeded in transforming America are ways that do so from within the contemporaneous political power model. Half-baked notions tossed about from outside about "wouldn't it be cool if" and "we should do this and that" isn't going to do much but give entrenched opposition time and means for countering the upheaval. Quite simply, nobody really likes revolutions, but nearly everyone can cotton to evolution.


Our founders despised parties, factions, and did the best they could to design a system that eschewed them.

• Our Documents - Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)

I too am not keen on parties and their "if you think yourself one of us, this is what you'll do" approach to politics. I'd love to see government positions doled out on a merit basis, but that won't at all happen until people become disaffected with parties.


The political process, what political strategists/consultants are paid to "make sense of," is these days aided by highly competent computerized modeling that has shifted presidential candidacy to an act of securing votes to win a popularity contest based on creating among the public perceptions associated with party/factional themes and "horse race" notions of winning and losing, not based on one's aptitude for governing and cogently and comprehensively presented platforms.

Check this out: The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. It may give a bit more clarity on what I'm talking about. I'm not going to wend my way through explaining it when Dick 50 years ago did such a fine job of it.

Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the community.
-- James Madison, Writing to Thomas Jefferson about rights​

​

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know anything about the New Zealand system, but I have the feeling that most first world countries have a system better than the US system.

Over 200 years out of date by the look of things. Any time a government can be formed without at least a plurality of votes there's going to be trouble.

Yes, in the olden days it didn't matter because the people didn't have the vote anyway, it was the rich who had the vote. But in the modern era it matters. The only thing keeping it going without people getting angry is that the rich overlords tell the underlings that they don't want to change the system.

You see the same arguments time and again, and wonder who is telling these people these arguments. Probably the Koch brothers.

 

[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.

Did you at all look at the document I shared? It's not that I don't appreciate the idealism of your idea. It's that you've presented it without addressing the factors that make the idea ineffectual, that make it merely "pie in the sky." That was fine when I was 16, perhaps even when I was 26. At 60 and with others more or less of the same age and experience, I haven't much will to suffer it, for as that line of discussion and pondering goes, it's rather "been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and it's long since worn out, and now we need to move on to leather soled shoes, collared shirts and sport jackets."

The reason why not, at least right now is not because the notion is bad; it's not. It's just not presently implementable, and the thing that makes it be not effectual is clear: parties. Thus my criticism here has nothing to do with the merits of the posited end, but rather with the fact that along with your nobly idealistic end, you've proposed no action plan for effecting it. The best ideas in the world are useless if one has no way to bring them to fruition.

• Nikola Tesla’s 5 Lost Inventions That Threatened The Global Elite
  
• The Rise and Fall of Nikola Tesla and his Tower | History | Smithsonian

One need only consider Nicola Tesla's story to see why. Since the Revolution, the only way that's ever succeeded in transforming America are ways that do so from within the contemporaneous political power model. Half-baked notions tossed about from outside about "wouldn't it be cool if" and "we should do this and that" isn't going to do much but give entrenched opposition time and means for countering the upheaval. Quite simply, nobody really likes revolutions, but nearly everyone can cotton to evolution.


Our founders despised parties, factions, and did the best they could to design a system that eschewed them.

• Our Documents - Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)

I too am not keen on parties and their "if you think yourself one of us, this is what you'll do" approach to politics. I'd love to see government positions doled out on a merit basis, but that won't at all happen until people become disaffected with parties.


The political process, what political strategists/consultants are paid to "make sense of," is these days aided by highly competent computerized modeling that has shifted presidential candidacy to an act of securing votes to win a popularity contest based on creating among the public perceptions associated with party/factional themes and "horse race" notions of winning and losing, not based on one's aptitude for governing and cogently and comprehensively presented platforms.

Check this out: The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. It may give a bit more clarity on what I'm talking about. I'm not going to wend my way through explaining it when Dick 50 years ago did such a fine job of it.

Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the community.
-- James Madison, Writing to Thomas Jefferson about rights​

​

No, I did not look at the article you sent. Personally I think if people want to back themselves up with something, they take the part of the article they think is relevant to their argument and they quote it, while proving the link. I'm not going to read all that to then try and mind read you on what parts you think are relevant.

You think I'm idealistic huh? You think wanting people to have a fair vote is idealistic. Well, I think it's what people in first world countries EXPECT in the modern era.

You've then gone on to how to implement such a system. Wow, wait, you don't need to consider implementation because you simply have to convince other people that this system is better. So, while I appreciate your jumping ahead to think about such things, I don't think it's necessary just yet.

I don't know why you've posted two sources about Tesla. The fact is that Proportional Representation is present in over 90 countries in the world, that's nearly half of the countries, and certainly more than half of those countries which allow free and fairish elections.

You aren't in favor of parties. That's fine and I understand this totally. The US started off with such a thought. The biggest problem with this is that we're humans, and we have a tendency to form parties. It's human nature, sometimes you just have to work with human nature and make it the best it can be.

Certainly the current system has the WORST of party politics. I don't know anywhere else with free and fair elections where politics is so ridiculously partisan. Spain is close to this, but nowhere near as bad.


The issue here is what do people want? Do they want to be controlled by the rich for the rich, or do they want politicians working for them?

 

[EverCurious]

Related (Note the title is a bit misleading, it's about D's circumventing the Constitution) - Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

 

[Vastator]

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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

 

[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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

Second time someone's used such an argument.

And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.

 

[EverCurious]

I'd disagree, this nation was founded upon the EC, if you don't like it and you prefer a different form of government or elections you're welcome to move.

This isn't fluffy shit like "being a Christian nation" - it's "foundation of this country" stuff you lefties want to ditch because you lost this year, because you're socialist or communist, because you hate white American's/rural Americans/opinionated Americans, different opinions and morals, different ideals and dreams, etc.

 

[Vastator]

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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

Second time someone's used such an argument.

And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.

It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

2 states make up 1/5th of the population.

you proved yourself wrong.

 

[Votto]

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.

Yes, I've always wanted a system where New York and California would determine the rest of all our elections.

After all, they seem to have a monopoly on our entertainment and key political figures like Trump anyway, so why not just let them finish the job?

Good call!

 

[Votto]

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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

Second time someone's used such an argument.

And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.

It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...

Progs have long sense hated the Founding Fathers and their notion that democracy is nothing short of mob rule, thus something to avoid

Of course, all you will hear from our political figures is how great "democracy" is as they falsely reference the US as a democracy. It's not, it is a Republic. The reason they get away with it and convince people like the OP that it is not only good, it is the only way, is because most people have been indoctrinated in the Prog educational system.

 

[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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

Second time someone's used such an argument.

And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.

It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...

And it just gets worse.

Sorry, I need to inform you that I come on here to talk to adults.

 

[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.

Yes, I've always wanted a system where New York and California would determine the rest of all our elections.

After all, they seem to have a monopoly on our entertainment and key political figures like Trump anyway, so why not just let them finish the job?

Good call!

Only, they wouldn't.

Just as in Germany where Berlin and Munich don't control the government.

I'm sorry you have been misinformed. You can read some of my other posts to see why you are misinformed.

 

[EverCurious]

Related - People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

 

[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.

The borders are open... Guess you can start packing now.

Second time someone's used such an argument.

And for the second time I'll say how shit an argument it is.

It's no argument. It's a fact. Best learn how to start coping with facts now; because they arent going away. You however can. The borders are open...

Progs have long sense hated the Founding Fathers and their notion that democracy is nothing short of mob rule, thus something to avoid

Of course, all you will hear from our political figures is how great "democracy" is as they falsely reference the US as a democracy. It's not, it is a Republic. The reason they get away with it and convince people like the OP that it is not only good, it is the only way, is because most people have been indoctrinated in the Prog educational system.

So, you prefer being ruled by the rich elite. So it doesn't matter whether Trump is president or whether the rich elite choose someone else, right? So let's get rid of Trump and put in Jeb Bush instead. You'd be okay with that because that isn't mob rule. Or how about Hillary?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Related - People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

Potentially, but the issue is the US has some semblance of Democracy, but not proper democracy. There's a system for choosing leaders, and it's skewed against the people choosing and for the rich to control it. Is that better?

 

[Votto]

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.

Yes, I've always wanted a system where New York and California would determine the rest of all our elections.

After all, they seem to have a monopoly on our entertainment and key political figures like Trump anyway, so why not just let them finish the job?

Good call!

Only, they wouldn't.

Just as in Germany where Berlin and Munich don't control the government.

I'm sorry you have been misinformed. You can read some of my other posts to see why you are misinformed.

Those two states tip the scales on population dingleberry.