Different political systems

[Dogmaphobe]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

But but but but but but but but it was working as intended then!

 

[Cellblock2429]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.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

/----/ We've got the best system of government in the history of the world and you want to change it to something else? Go live in Europe if you think it's so neat.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

But but but but but but but but it was working as intended then!

But but but but but but but no, it was....

​

#s 2 and 7 are the most interesting, don't you think?

Is he right? Why won't Hillary Clinton start a revolution?

 

[Lastamender]

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.

France and Germany are soon to be third world shitholes. I'll stick with our form of government and law enforcement.

They are not laughing in France or Germany. I am glad Pogo thinks it is funny and some other form of government is better than ours, now that is funny.

 

[Lastamender]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

But but but but but but but but it was working as intended then!

But but but but but but but no, it was....

​

#s 2 and 7 are the most interesting, don't you think?

Is he right? Why won't Hillary Clinton start a revolution?

She does not need to. It started 60 years ago.

 

[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.

Sure it does.

It is a joke when your flaw candidate loses the election but is perfectly fine when your candidate win.

Actually I don't have a "flaw candidate" or even a flawed one. All I get is either (a) Duopoly all day, or (b) a protest vote for a third party. I've tried (b) and it's unsatisfying.

Perhaps you like being imprisioned in a flawed system. I don't.

The reality is the House of Representatives are the voice for you and I and not the damn President.

The reality is the Electoral College worked and that is why those like you hate it. Clinton lost the majority of states in 2016 but you and your kind believe blue states like California should swing the vote and ignore the red states wish of not having her as President.

The EC has never "worked". And I have no such "beliefs" --- you seem to Ass---- ume much. Are you a proctologist?

Also let stop passing the buck and blaming the system and let blame your political party failure to bring in the green vote so you could win in key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Again there's the same ass------umption. I don't have a political party either, Elmer. I'm part of the largest political party faction in this country, which is "None".

Let also admit that Jill Stein cost Clinton in those key States and had the Democratic Party not played games with Sanders then just maybe Clinton would have won.

Utterly irrelevant. Dismissed.

As for the world opinion when it come to our election process, well this country has been doing this a lot longer than most countries have been without some form of dictatorship, so fuck them and their pathetic opinion.

Emotional bullshit. Dismissed.

I mean maybe America should be more like China or North Korea with the one party system and your choice is what the government allow you to vote on!?!

It's actually more like that than you're willing to admit. That's one reason I don't have a political party.

DUH.

So it is not the system but the ignorant voter that believe only a few states with large populations should have the say and forget the rest of the nation!

Not even English. Dismissed.

Also funny how none of you are willing to move to Germany or France but yet love their systems so much.

Also funny how many are only wiling to go " I wanna keep the Same Old Thing!"
Almost as funny as working on ass-----umptions when one can't handle the points.

 

[Pogo]

You are certainly lacking in education to think the fact we have the largest GDP in the world is "emotional hyperbole".

Perhaps you are simply lacking in wisdom to ass---- ume that GDP is some kind of universal ultimate goal.
Ya think?

Same goes for the state of our influence and our international power.

Back to the emotional hyperbole. That didn't take long.

You are simply a bitter little man due to the fact you don't amount to anything.

Aaaaaand right back to the complete emotional meltdown of ad hom. Yawn.

 

[EverCurious]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

But but but but but but but but it was working as intended then!

But but but but but but but no, it was....

​

#s 2 and 7 are the most interesting, don't you think?

Is he right? Why won't Hillary Clinton start a revolution?

As to #7 he got his revolution, and in fact those opinions there are exactly why he's in the White House - because he's not another god damn politician, because he felt we were headed down the wrong track (as did so many of us voters), etc. Us law and order types tend to have /legal/ revolutions, not violent temper tantrums like anarchist children. This revolution was a bit of a psychological case study on the difference in implied motive and intent.

Somewhat OT rambling to my point:

As much as the left chose to get wrapped up in words and "chide" Americans for evening "thinking" to approve of a man who might "dare" to say such things, the right heard those words as mere slang/short hand/jokes/etc. as they were intended and listened to the overall message being conveyed. Trump won because we are talking about realistic frank discussion between adults who went in to the conversation with a "common knowledge" that both parties genuinely wanted what is best for the nation; rather than the lefts decision to approach the discussion with us American's as with "enemies" and seeking to "destroy" them [Trump and his supporters] before they "wrecked" the country [shut down those who would dare listen to a rude man, etc.]

The left has made it quite clear, through DNC actions, through their collusion with the media, through their choice of candidate, and indeed through Clinton's actions and words that they think of us voters as unintelligent children who must be kept on leashes so we don't turn into heathen bands of rabid dogs. (Ironic since that's pretty much exactly what the left proved themselves to be upon losing.) The Republicans have played the same games as the left, though with a slightly less hostile tone. On the other hand we have Trump who was completely unapologetic, yet, no matter who he offended, made fun of, or rudely dismissed, he always spoke to American voters as "people who care and have good intentions," and said quite plainly to them; we can fix this.

This IMO is why the left will likely fail again; because they have lost the message of "hope" and "working together" and instead are running on a defensive platform of "fear" and "taking over."

 

[Pogo]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

But but but but but but but but it was working as intended then!

But but but but but but but no, it was....

​

#s 2 and 7 are the most interesting, don't you think?

Is he right? Why won't Hillary Clinton start a revolution?

As to #7 he got his revolution, and in fact those opinions there are exactly why he's in the White House - because he's not another god damn politician, because he felt we were headed down the wrong track (as did so many of us voters), etc. Us law and order types tend to have /legal/ revolutions, not violent temper tantrums like anarchist children. This revolution was a bit of a psychological case study on the difference in implied motive and intent.

Actually he's talking about Mitt Romney there. Because of his unique math skills he was under the impression that Romney won the pop vote and lost the EC. Which makes this series of tweets profoundly ironic.

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

 

[EverCurious]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong." It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

 

[Pogo]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

 

[EverCurious]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

I'll actually agree to that, the EC should not be winner take all, but that decision is on the individual soverign states - that's how they want it because the political class parties (D and R both) have gamed the system to their favor over all other parties.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

... There is no emotional butthurt what-so-ever in my statement son. I find it amusing that you don't see how you've done the exact same thing I espoused. You dislike my opinion on the matter so much that you cannot even discuss it heh

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

France and Germany are soon to be third world shitholes. I'll stick with our form of government and law enforcement.

They are not laughing in France or Germany. I am glad Pogo thinks it is funny and some other form of government is better than ours, now that is funny.

He's just pissed that we don't have as much rape jihad occurring here.

 

[Pogo]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

I'll actually agree to that, the EC should not be winner take all, but that decision is on the individual soverign states - that's how they want it because the political class parties (D and R both) have gamed the system to their favor over all other parties.

Agree in full. If you had stopped here I could have just checked the greenie thing.

That's one of the arguments against the status quo -- that it perpetuates the Same Old Thing Duopoly and shuts out any third party, forever. I don't get why people would want to lock themselves into those walls. It makes no sense.

And the big one of course as stated earlier, is that it tosses a great many millions of votes straight into the trash can, which in turn severely depresses voter participation by virtue of there being no point in going to vote in the first place. I can't imagine anybody trying to defend that depressed voter participation is a good thing. Matter of fact those hare-on-fires that jump around trying to convince us that "California and New York would decide our elections" seem to be making exactly that case.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

... There is no emotional butthurt what-so-ever in my statement son. I find it amusing that you don't see how you've done the exact same thing I espoused. You dislike my opinion on the matter so much that you cannot even discuss it heh

I'm looking at the terms "shit", "me and mine", "we're number one" (paraphrased), "rediculous" (left intact as I can't tell if the misspelling was intentional), "oppressive", "evil", "lower myself", "victim" and "domination", none of which did I bring up or imply and none of which are relevant to the question in any way or have any value other than as emotional butthurt.

 

[EverCurious]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

I'll actually agree to that, the EC should not be winner take all, but that decision is on the individual soverign states - that's how they want it because the political class parties (D and R both) have gamed the system to their favor over all other parties.

Agree in full. If you had stopped here I could have just checked the greenie thing.

That's one of the arguments against the status quo -- that it perpetuates the Same Old Thing Duopoly and shuts out any third party, forever. I don't get why people would want to lock themselves into those walls. It makes no sense.

And the big one of course as stated earlier, is that it tosses a great many millions of votes straight into the trash can, which in turn severely depresses voter participation by virtue of there being no point in going to vote in the first place. I can't imagine anybody trying to defend that depressed voter participation is a good thing. Matter of fact those hare-on-fires that jump around trying to convince us that "California and New York would decide our elections" seem to be making exactly that case.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

... There is no emotional butthurt what-so-ever in my statement son. I find it amusing that you don't see how you've done the exact same thing I espoused. You dislike my opinion on the matter so much that you cannot even discuss it heh

I'm looking at the terms "shit", "me and mine", "we're number one" (paraphrased), "rediculous" (left intact as I can't tell if the misspelling was intentional), "oppressive", "evil", "lower myself", "victim" and "domination", none of which did I bring up or imply and none of which are relevant to the question in any way or have any value other than as emotional butthurt.

Your opinion because you don't like the words I used; have at you. I have stated my opinion on the thread topic and why I had difficulty addressing it without bias.


Well that's curious. I have a spell check fail, I'll have to report it to FireFox ~shrug~

 

[imawhosure]

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.

A little historical education for you--------->

1. were it NOT for the electoral system, there would NOT have been a USA. The reason we are called the UNITED States, is because the states had control of themselves, not the federal government. The states wanted it to remain that way, with very little federal control. It is also why the original intent of the Senate was supposed to be the VOICE OF THE STATES, while the House was the voice of the people.

2. If you want to do away with the EC, I say go for it! Sign up along with the rest of us, for an article 5! We will barter away the EC for removal of the 17th amendment and a balanced budget amendment, that I promise you! Then everybody gets what they want------> you get a Democrat as President virtually every time, and we insure the Presidency loses 2/3rds of its power along with a balanced budget! See, we can work together!

 

[Pogo]

The rest of the post, yes, was all OT. The thread's about electoral systems.

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

I'll actually agree to that, the EC should not be winner take all, but that decision is on the individual soverign states - that's how they want it because the political class parties (D and R both) have gamed the system to their favor over all other parties.

Agree in full. If you had stopped here I could have just checked the greenie thing.

That's one of the arguments against the status quo -- that it perpetuates the Same Old Thing Duopoly and shuts out any third party, forever. I don't get why people would want to lock themselves into those walls. It makes no sense.

And the big one of course as stated earlier, is that it tosses a great many millions of votes straight into the trash can, which in turn severely depresses voter participation by virtue of there being no point in going to vote in the first place. I can't imagine anybody trying to defend that depressed voter participation is a good thing. Matter of fact those hare-on-fires that jump around trying to convince us that "California and New York would decide our elections" seem to be making exactly that case.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

... There is no emotional butthurt what-so-ever in my statement son. I find it amusing that you don't see how you've done the exact same thing I espoused. You dislike my opinion on the matter so much that you cannot even discuss it heh

I'm looking at the terms "shit", "me and mine", "we're number one" (paraphrased), "rediculous" (left intact as I can't tell if the misspelling was intentional), "oppressive", "evil", "lower myself", "victim" and "domination", none of which did I bring up or imply and none of which are relevant to the question in any way or have any value other than as emotional butthurt.

Your opinion because you don't like the words I used; have at you. I have stated my opinion on the thread topic and why I had difficulty addressing it without bias.


Well that's curious. I have a spell check fail, I'll have to report it to FireFox ~shrug~

"Like" really doesn't enter into it. I'm simply observing that your tangent is all about emotional judgments of "oppression" and "we're number one" and "victims" and "domination", and that, as such, they have no discussional value. It's not the topic.


As far as wordage, I did think "rediculous" might have been an intentional pun, and I'd like to note that I'm fully aware that the term "emotional butthurt" is redundant. That's intentional too.

 

[EverCurious]

As was your addition and discussion of "revolution" as well.

As to the topic, I wholly reject the notion that the system put in place by the founding fathers was "wrong."

Actually hold it right there.

The system we speak of, in use right now, is not the system put in place by founding fathers. What we have now devolved into the "winner take all" malarkey, based solely on a few states' self-interest and then followed in an obsequious mob mentality to the point where 48 states now use it and the other two stop just short. It's revealing that the founding father most responsible for the Electoral College, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment making that practice illegal. And he was right to see its pitfall.

That's exactly why I've been focusing on that aspect. It's not part of the EC design. It's an abuse of it.

I'll actually agree to that, the EC should not be winner take all, but that decision is on the individual soverign states - that's how they want it because the political class parties (D and R both) have gamed the system to their favor over all other parties.

Agree in full. If you had stopped here I could have just checked the greenie thing.

That's one of the arguments against the status quo -- that it perpetuates the Same Old Thing Duopoly and shuts out any third party, forever. I don't get why people would want to lock themselves into those walls. It makes no sense.

And the big one of course as stated earlier, is that it tosses a great many millions of votes straight into the trash can, which in turn severely depresses voter participation by virtue of there being no point in going to vote in the first place. I can't imagine anybody trying to defend that depressed voter participation is a good thing. Matter of fact those hare-on-fires that jump around trying to convince us that "California and New York would decide our elections" seem to be making exactly that case.

It is hard to discuss the topic when it forwards the idea that a republic [our republic] is shit, when me and mine and so many many others in this nation have directly benefited from it and it has made us the most powerful nation on earth. To do so I would have to adopt the lefts rather rediculious implied notion that powerful people are automatically oppressive and, essentially, evil - which I do not. In fact, I have respect for powerful people and nations. I am rather unwilling to lower myself to the status of "victim" just to entertain the reaching idea that some other vulnerable government system "might" be better than that which has proven effective in it's goal of [mostly] peaceful world domination. ~shrug~

Now we've descended back into emotional butthurt hype and as such it must be dismissed.

... There is no emotional butthurt what-so-ever in my statement son. I find it amusing that you don't see how you've done the exact same thing I espoused. You dislike my opinion on the matter so much that you cannot even discuss it heh

I'm looking at the terms "shit", "me and mine", "we're number one" (paraphrased), "rediculous" (left intact as I can't tell if the misspelling was intentional), "oppressive", "evil", "lower myself", "victim" and "domination", none of which did I bring up or imply and none of which are relevant to the question in any way or have any value other than as emotional butthurt.

Your opinion because you don't like the words I used; have at you. I have stated my opinion on the thread topic and why I had difficulty addressing it without bias.


Well that's curious. I have a spell check fail, I'll have to report it to FireFox ~shrug~

"Like" really doesn't enter into it. I'm simply observing that your tangent is all about emotional judgments of "oppression" and "we're number one" and "victims" and "domination", and that, as such, they have no discussional value. It's not the topic.


As far as wordage, I did think "rediculous" might have been an intentional pun, and I'd like to note that I'm fully aware that the term "emotional butthurt" is redundant. That's intentional too.

Whatever, I edited the dictionary and now both show up as misspelled ~sigh~ (I'll have to fix that later as my son went back upstairs and I'm stuck dictating this week. I fell out of a tree...)

 

[Richard-H]

in the Soviet Union, even though there was only one candidate, they did have the option to vote "No".

I wish we had that option. The way American elections work, if only 3 people vote in an electoral district, an one candidate gets 2 votes, they declare a 67% margin of victory.

We not only should have a "No" vote, but it should be required that the winner has to have more votes than there are "No" votes.

But then again - no one would ever get elected!

 

[Pogo]

in the Soviet Union, even though there was only one candidate, they did have the option to vote "No".

I wish we had that option. The way American elections work, if only 3 people vote in an electoral district, an one candidate gets 2 votes, they declare a 67% margin of victory.

We not only should have a "No" vote, but it should be required that the winner has to have more votes than there are "No" votes.

But then again - no one would ever get elected!

If we had such a choice in 2016, NOTA woulda won by a landslide.