Different political systems

[impuretrash]

I don't like it. It props up the weak amongst us.

The disabled, elderly and children of irresponsible parents maybe.

 

[Vastator]

Difficult to make any lasting changes with this revolving door of competing ideologies erasing one another's accomplishments.

Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.

Interesting. Good luck getting people to accept that form of government using the loaded term fascism though, might as well promote 'national socialism'.

Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of dictatorial regimes who weaeled their way into power, promising fascism.

National socialism isn't bad either. If we stop pissing away tax dollars propping up and bombing other countries and instead spend that money here, in our own nation...

I don't like it. It props up the weak amongst us.

Capitalistic fascism promotes individual excellence, and achievement. Socialism promotes stagnation, and mediocrity. The two are polar opposites, and incompatible.

 

[cnm]

Proper democracy? No, the US is not a democracy period.

Another rightard dumb fuck who couldn't recognise a dictionary if one fell on his head.

 

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I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.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

Why do people in the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt deserve to be over represented... I thought it said all men created equally...

Do you think they'll agree to cut their throats by helping to get rid of the electoral college?

It's here to stay, get used to it

 

[impuretrash]

Pinochet memes are pretty awesome...

Once the left has accomplished the destruction of our existing Republic... A new form of government will have to overthrow theirs. One that utilizes the best of what our founders had in mind; and coupled with built in safeguards that prevent what we're seeing now. TriLateral fascism is that government.

Interesting. Good luck getting people to accept that form of government using the loaded term fascism though, might as well promote 'national socialism'.

Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of dictatorial regimes who weaeled their way into power, promising fascism.

National socialism isn't bad either. If we stop pissing away tax dollars propping up and bombing other countries and instead spend that money here, in our own nation...

I don't like it. It props up the weak amongst us.

Capitalistic fascism promotes individual excellence, and achievement. Socialism promotes stagnation, and mediocrity. The two are polar opposites, and incompatible.

 

[cnm]

Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of tyranical, militaristic, dictatorships who weaseled their way into power, promising fascism.

Is that why you don't give its 'true meaning'?

 

[cnm]

Of course, words from the horse's mouth won't be acceptable...

Modern History Sourcebook:
Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

Internet History Sourcebooks
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....​

 

[Crixus]

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.

Man the ass hurt STILL flows! Instead of beating a dead horse that's been beaten so much on this board since 2009, why don't y'all write letters to the people who can change it instead of melting down about it here STILL?

 

[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​

​

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?

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.

That is what I do when it's apparent to me that the other parties to the conversation understand the foundational aspects of the topic under discussion. What convinces me that they do so understand the basics of the topic? Well, mainly their somehow giving substantive credence to the obvious rebuttals to their remarks.

In the matter of your opposition to the electoral college, one way of doing that would have been to at least mention the four key considerations the Founders sought to address by designing and codifying the electoral college. Another way would have been to at least have mentioned something evincing the impact of changes to the original design of the electoral college. Yet another approach, albeit more subtle, would have been to frame your remarks in terms of, or at least allude to, things like Federalist Paper discussions on factions (drawing from 10 or 51).

Alluding to the notion of factions is the course I chose in my initial reply to your ideas. I chose to do that and accompany my post with the electoral college paper because I thought the core topic itself -- the pros and cons of various approaches to choosing governmental executives -- has some interest as either (1) a discussion in which are introduced and pondered composite and innovative models of electoral expression among voters, or (2) as a debate topic wherein the debate question is "the U.S. model for choosing the government executive is...."

Which of the two paths would result is something I had no way to know, but I knew I am not willing to pursue either one unless the other party(s) to the discussion were enabled and willing to engage from a starting point founded on the well and long understood etiology of the electoral college. My way of finding one or more individuals who were thus prepared was (and usually is) to toss out, usually via an allusion, an oblique but topically apropos idea that, being thus prepared, they'd recognize, latch right onto. and take up the discussion accordingly. In the exchange with you, the notion of factions was the one I used to that end. You can call that my way of probing if you want for that's exactly what it is.

I don't just probe, however. The document I linked addresses the role of factions, along with a lot more pertaining to the electoral college, and a major part of why I linked that document was to make readily available to an interested party, the basic content they'd need to develop some innovative/interesting and substantive ideas of their own, even if the background of the electoral college weren't well understood by them.

Now why would I do that? Well, with regard to this specific conversation, for several reasons:

• I don't know a damn thing about you. For no reason in particular, all I can say I know about you is that I recognize that I've before seen your avatar. I have no idea on what matters you've routinely expressed really well thought through ideas and positions. Thus, all I know relative to you and this thread's topic is what I read in your post to which I replied.
  
  What I read there amounts to "I don't like the electoral college and I think France and Germany have better ways of choosing their government's top executive." Upon seeing your OP, I thought "okay, well, that's his opinion, but what does he see in those models that overcomes the basic governance "excesses"/shortcomings the electoral college was designed to mitigate.
• To entreat for substantive discussion that amounts to more than just banter focused around the central theme/purpose of our each sharing "I think X" and "you think Y." That linked document, like many of the ones I reference in my posts, was provided to make sure the playing field is relatively level. Doing so invites others to participate with rigor rather than ridiculousness by in essence laying at their feet the information they might need, if it be they haven't previously consumed it, to do so. The whole point of my doing so is to entreat for a substantive conversation and show that I've got no intention of biasing the conversation or excluding others by assuming the other party(s) has or has not already consumed major relevant background content.
• I'm well aware that over the course of my training and subsequent ~35 years of living, I've read a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff.
  
  Just by way of example, in high school:
  • U.S. history, we had our survey-style main text, which was like any U.S. history text, and that was supplemented with some 10 or 12 additional books including Mill, Hobbes, The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America (reading this was spread over the whole term of the class), "Common Sense," and an assortment of short (~20 pages or less) scholarly papers and selected Founders letters and ruminations, and we got tested progressively on all of it over the course of the term and had to write papers about various ideas derived from key themes in those texts and papers, the doing of which called for even more reading. That was in the 10th grade.
  • Latin class in which we read Horace, Catullus, Cicero, Cato, Thucydides, Livy, Virgil, etc. That class had two clear purposes: (1) to boost one's mastery of Latin as a language (something I wasn't particularly adept at and didn't like doing, but managed to get it done) by having us, in Latin, engage in discussions about the texts we read, and exposing us to the ideas of classical history, philosophy and humanism via literature. The literature reading was whatever was on the syllabus. The Latin grammar text assignments ranged from individualized ones based on what the teacher thought each student needed to review of brush up on, or general ones based on what the teacher though everyone in the class needed to work on. And of course, each literature text had at least one 5-10 page paper, written in Latin, about something having to do with the author's ideas. (I hated Latin, so my essays were always just summaries of what the author wrote about.)
  • English class. Since I took Latin, I had to take English for students who took Latin, which meant we read translated versions of the Greek classics. (Students who took Greek were in an English class that read translated versions of Latin classics.) Just as with history/government and Latin class, we wrote papers galore, at least one 3-5 page paper a week. Imagine four years of that.
  • Math. Over the terms of calculus, we read Principia Mathematica (translated).
    
  • Theology -- Quite literally more of the same. We studied the Bible in slightly dogmatic way, but mostly in an academic way. Again, however, we read "the greats" -- Martin Luther, Aquinas, Anselm, etc.

After college and over time, I found out that was not the foundational learning experience of kids who didn't go to a school like mine. Nonetheless, that experience pattern continued apace when I got to college, except that there was slightly more stuff to read and more writing, and structuring when and how one fit it all in was no longer as tightly managed by the instructor. Sometimes I encountered the same texts/content/ideas at a more involved level and other times it was content I'd not previously encountered. (I suppose that's not surprising seeing as my middle and grade school's sole raison d'etre was to prepare us for college.) And as an adult, I kept on reading similar content in disciplines to which I had little formal exposure and that struck me as interesting. What changed as an adult was that I didn't have to write papers about things I'd for my own satisfaction just learned/read.

Hopefully you'll construe the foregoing in the neutral spirit in which I wrote it. The point is that I know I cannot assume "we all" have the same exposure to the same stuff, but I can make an effort to at least share some of that "stuff" so as not to exclude others and so as not to find myself talking at others with whom I engage on substance. I welcome, with folks with whom I've not for the past 40 years of my life done so, having discussions on topics such as the one you introduced. That said, coming by mere novelty isn't the point.

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.

Convincing others that one has a "better mousetrap" is of no import if there's no getting it built. Presuming that, say, Trump has a "better mousetrap," will produce nothing other than frustration and disappointment if he can't implement it.

You mentioned human nature. Human nature, our predilection for having confidence in people who get things done, in people who deliver as stated, is a core aspect.

Think back to the colonists/Founders who implemented the Articles of Confederation in their initial attempt to form the United States. They did get implemented what they said they would -- a new government and a new nation free of England's tyranny -- but the design they implemented didn't work as well as they'd hoped, so they scrapped it. Nonetheless, some of the same people played material roles in crafting and debating/representing both documents, two even signed the Declaration, Constitution and Articles. Why? Among other things, because they'd proven that they could get things done and they had useful idea on how to get things done.

One need not be especially prescient, smart, or at all infallible (or nearly so). One need only deliver the tangible things one promises to deliver. That starts with broaching some way or or something about how to get a thing done. Implementing.

I don't know why you've posted two sources about Tesla.

I posted them between these two sentences:

• The best ideas in the world are useless if one has no way to bring them to fruition.
  
• One need only consider Nicola Tesla's story to see why.

The reason for there being there was to provide handy access to a brief illustration of how what happens when a great thinker who has great ideas fails to deliver, fails to see his innovative and arguably brilliant ideas brought to fruition, regardless of how or why he failed to do so.

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.

True enough. As one'll note from reading the linked content in Electoral College document, the original design of the electoral college to some extent attenuated the influence of parties. That came to a screeching halt with the passage of the 12th Amendment, which interestingly enough, until 1971, was the most rapidly ratified and enacted of all the Amendments.

(The most quickly enacted Amendment was the 26th, which enfranchised everyone 18 and over.)

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?

Dude, surely you're not so naive as to think that rich folks will ever not have a material and often enough, even if not always, controlling say in public policy?

In the U.S. we have a concept called "The American Dream," which more or less equates to enjoying a middle class or better lifestyle. The fact of the matter is that everyone one who achieves it is rich enough to have their voice heard in the formulation of public policy. What factors increase the likelihood that one enjoys "The American Dream?" Several:

• Age -- If one works long enough, reaching middle class status by the time one is 65 or so is fairly achievable.
• Education -- There're no two ways about it. People with more education earn more money. More money earned increases one's odds of achieving the "Dream."

At even the most basic level of having a say in the American political and policy making process, that of voting in an election, the population segments that have the greatest voter turnout rates are people over 60 and people with higher educations. That is, people who've most likely achieved "The American Dream."

​

​

So, when it comes to whom primarily (an exception here and there is okay) I want to see hold high elected or appointed office, I want to see in those positions, people who have figured out how to realize "The Dream," not folks who have not. And you know what, as one of the people who's realized "The Dream," the people who've held those jobs for as long as I've been alive are representing me, even though I may at times differ with one or some of the specific policy initiatives they advocate/pass.

Quite simply, there is no conspiracy to "screw over" the people who understand the way to "make it" in America and who adhere to the strictures for doing so. And take it from me, a guy who had to make it on his own and did, there's nothing terrible about a life lived in accordance with the so-called guidelines. Indeed, it is a very nice life, one that has never been encumbered such that something I wanted to do, and endeavored in earnest to do, was denied to me by the federal, state, or local government.

A rising tide lifts all boats, but putting more boats in the water raises the tide.
-- Something Dad said.​

 

[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.

By how much?

The reality is 20% of the population live in these two states, but only 10% of voters are from these two states.

So, how much impact do 10% of voters have in PR? Well, about 10% of the vote.

Surely they should have a say in a democracy.

Hillary won by the majority of voters BECAUSE of New York and California.

That is the way pretty much all elections would pan out from here on out.

 

[Vastator]

Most people who recoil from the word fascism don't know It's true meaning but instead imagine a host of tyranical, militaristic, dictatorships who weaseled their way into power, promising fascism.

Is that why you don't give its 'true meaning'?

Glad you asked! "No"... I leave it up to the poster to educate themselves on a given topic, before they ignorantly pop off at the mouth, in an attempt to troll a conversation. Good question...

 

[Votto]

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?

Proper democracy? No, the US is not a democracy period.

I realize all our political leaders refer to us as a democracy, but it is just one of many of their lies they feed to us for a purpose such as this.

Nor should it be. Mob rule would be the bane of every minorities existence.

People think that Dims have chosen to favor people of color because they care about them, but I have a different take.

It used to be that when white men came to the US, they outnumbered and outgunned the brown man, so they racially targeted both Indian and slave to oppress them for their own money and power.

However, today we see whitey not having as many children as people of color are coming to the US in droves. Now it behooves them to target whitey and favor those of color, all in the name of securing their wealth and power.

 

[NightFox]

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.

LOL, your recommendations for models to follow for political systems are the French and the Germans? Could you have picked two worse examples ? lets take a look at the history of these two countries since the era of the founding of the U.S. and see how their political stability compares....

Since the French Revolution in 1789 the French have had:
The French Republic (1792-1804)
The Napoleonic Empire (1804-1814)
The Restoration of the Monarchy (1814-1848)
The 2nd Republic (1848-1870)
The 3rd Republic (1870-1940)
Vichy and Nazi Occupied France (1940-1945)
The 4th Republic (1946-1958)
Final Imperial Collapse (1958)
The 5th Republic (1958-present)

Yeah the French are a real model of political stability, tranquility and effectiveness

The Germans haven't fared much better
The German Confederation (1814-1848)
Failed Unification Revolution (1848-1850)
North German Confederation (1850-1866)
German Empire (1871-1918)
German Revolution (1918)
Wiemar Republic (1918-1933)
Nazi 3rd Reich (1933-1945)
Germany Partitioned (West-East) (1945-1990)
Unified Republic of Germany (1990-Present)

Again not exactly a model of political stability

The current incarnation of the French Government is 59 years old, the Germans 27 years old, remind me how old is the U.S. Republic and the Constitution that governs it?

On the bright side, if you're French Citizen or a German Citizen and don't happen to like the current form of government in your country you just need to wait a few decades and it'll change.

While we poor saps in the U.S. have had to endure 241 years of political stability, economic growth (to the point of becoming the wealthiest nation in the HISTORY OF MANKIND) and the rule of law interrupted by one civil war that ended 152 years ago.

Anyone that suggests modeling a political system after the French or Germans is either completely ignorant of history or needs their head examined.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A question for all the regressives who hate this country of ours -- if our system is so bad, how is it we have become the most powerful, wealthy and influential country in the world?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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?)

They're fine with it until their candidate loses because of Texas...

Then they'll claim the Texas vote should not count...

The Electoral College make it where every state has a say, but those like the OP'er believe red states should not have as much to say in elections like blue states...

Also when will the damn ignorant fools realize the voice of America is our House of Reps and not the President?

 

[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?)

They're fine with it until their candidate loses because of Texas...

Then they'll claim the Texas vote should not count...

The Electoral College make it where every state has a say, but those like the OP'er believe red states should not have as much to say in elections like blue states...

Also when will the damn ignorant fools realize the voice of America is our House of Reps and not the President?

The flaw there is that "the state has a say" but its people -- do not. My state for example went to Congress and declared "wow, it's amazing -- every single voter in the state of North Carolina voted for Donald Rump" --- which is absolute bullshit.

Until that's fixed our election system remains an international joke.

 

[Pogo]

A question for all the regressives who hate this country of ours -- if our system is so bad, how is it we have become the most powerful, wealthy and influential country in the world?

A question for those who float the above question --- why is it so important that y'all keep telling yourself that?

Smacks of more than a little insecurity.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A question for all the regressives who hate this country of ours -- if our system is so bad, how is it we have become the most powerful, wealthy and influential country in the world?

A question for those who float the above question --- why is it so important that y'all keep telling yourself that?

Smacks of more than a little insecurity.

Facts are never insecure, child.

I do not suffer from the same lack of self-esteem so typical to the regressive portion of the left where I blame my own culture for the fact I don't amount to anything. I DO amount to something and so do not indulge in all this typical regreessive blather.

I do note that you are unable to offer any rational response to the question I posed, however. That is because it shoots the op to smithereenes.

 

[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.

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.

By how much?

The reality is 20% of the population live in these two states, but only 10% of voters are from these two states.

So, how much impact do 10% of voters have in PR? Well, about 10% of the vote.

Surely they should have a say in a democracy.

Hillary won by the majority of voters BECAUSE of New York and California.

That is the way pretty much all elections would pan out from here on out.

Wrong. And here's why.

You're ASSUMING that under a legitimately representative system -- as every country with democratic elections practices except us and Pakistan --- that popular vote would be the same as it is now and all you do is subtract the Electoral College from the process.

That ignores the entire context behind the whole exercise.

We currently "boast" an abysmal participation rate in our own elections. 2016's 55% was typical, and most countries would be and should be grossly embarrassed at that level. Why is that? Because millions of voters know before election day that their vote WILL NOT COUNT. Anyone who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state has no purpose in going to vote for a President. They can vote with their state, they can vote against their state, they can vote some alternate candidate, or they can stay home and not participate at all, and all four actions have the same result ---- so what's the point? Stay home, get something productive done, and your red state votes Republican or your blue state votes Democrat, and nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and the Duopoly system perpetuates itself in perpetuity.

And if you happen to be in a so-called "batleground" state -- a bullshit concept that could not, and should not, exist but for the equally bullshitious "winner take all" electoral college system --- then you have a brief period of relevance influencing that, after which your vote just might be tossed in the dump anyway and thanks for playin'.

Now take that system of institutional irrelevance foisted upon that 45% of the electorate that doesn't bother to show up because what's the point, GIVE them a point, MAKE them actually relevant, and you see a whole different ball game.

In other words you, and I, and we, have no idea how many voters in New York and California and Massachusets would have voted Red if they thought their vote would count, nor do we have any idea how many in Alabama and Utah and Nebraska would vote blue for the same reason. We have no basis to predict anything, because we have no history of counting votes in a system where everybody's vote counts. In a way we have never had a real Presidential election.

So this is uncharted territory and predicting how a representative system would pan out based only on the history of an unrepresentative system ------- tells us nothing.

 

[Votto]

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.

By how much?

The reality is 20% of the population live in these two states, but only 10% of voters are from these two states.

So, how much impact do 10% of voters have in PR? Well, about 10% of the vote.

Surely they should have a say in a democracy.

Hillary won by the majority of voters BECAUSE of New York and California.

That is the way pretty much all elections would pan out from here on out.

Wrong. And here's why.

You're ASSUMING that under a legitimately representative system -- as every country with democratic elections practices except us and Pakistan --- that popular vote would be the same as it is now and all you do is subtract the Electoral College from the process.

That ignores the entire context behind the whole exercise.

We currently "boast" an abysmal participation rate in our own elections. 2016's 55% was typical, and most countries would be and should be grossly embarrassed at that level. Why is that? Because millions of voters know before election day that their vote WILL NOT COUNT. Anyone who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state has no purpose in going to vote for a President. They can vote with their state, they can vote against their state, they can vote some alternate candidate, or they can stay home and not participate at all, and all four actions have the same result ---- so what's the point? Stay home, get something productive done, and your red state votes Republican or your blue state votes Democrat, and nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and the Duopoly system perpetuates itself in perpetuity.

And if you happen to be in a so-called "batleground" state -- a bullshit concept that could not, and should not, exist but for the equally bullshitious "winner take all" electoral college system --- then you have a brief period of relevance influencing that, after which your vote just might be tossed in the dump anyway and thanks for playin'.

Now take that system of institutional irrelevance foisted upon that 45% of the electorate that doesn't bother to show up because what's the point, GIVE them a point, MAKE them actually relevant, and you see a whole different ball game.

In other words you, and I, and we, have no idea how many voters in New York and California and Massachusets would have voted Red if they thought their vote would count, nor do we have any idea how many in Alabama and Utah and Nebraska would vote blue for the same reason. We have no basis to predict anything, because we have no history of counting votes in a system where everybody's vote counts. In a way we have never had a real Presidential election.

So this is uncharted territory and predicting how a representative system would pan out based only on the history of an unrepresentative system ------- tells us nothing.

Wut?

California and New York vote straight Dim.