frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,458
- 9,942
- 2,030
It wouldn't matter if it were popular vote only then it would just be another 12 states. At least the way it is the democrats can't keep stuffing CA with illegal voters who can thus sway the vote.You bring up a good point that shows how messed up is the democrat party. No one has campaigned in CA and NY in years, why? Because it is full of democrat voters. So in effect democrats have been spotted a really big lead, yet they lose. Thankfully the founders realized that one state could dominate and started the electoral college.Much has been said and written about why and how the Democrats find themselves out of the White House, and in the minority in Congress. Not to mention State Houses. We all know the arguments, so let's focus on something else.
It's clear now that the Democrats' strategy for 2018 and 2020 is not to change any of their behaviors, whether you agree with them or not. The strategy is to bring Trump down as far as possible and then make those elections a simple referendum.
That was essentially the Republicans' strategy with Obama, and the Democrats can't be blamed for pointing at that and saying, "See? Let's just do that. It worked. And it's easier". That's where we are. That's where our politics are.
The press and the Democrats are going to minimize/avoid any positive developments in areas such as the economy, and they're going to focus on Trump and his behaviors.
So given that, why won't that work in 2018 and 2020?
.
The main one would be the system that hasn't given the US a new president with a majority of the votes since 1992.
Yes, it's been 25 years since a Republican not in office managed to get more votes than their counterpart.
And yet in this time the Republicans have managed to get HALF of the presidents.
Don't fuck around pretending it's because the Republicans somehow have the message of the people.
No, this isn't how messed up the Democratic Party is, it's how messed up THE SYSTEM IS.
In Presidential elections they only campaign in TWELVE STATES because all the others are basic certainties for one party or the other. In other words, the system says only 20% of the people get to decide who the president is. That's fucked up.
And again I point out to you, the democrats always start out with a huge electoral lead, and they lose. THAT is why you want to change the system, you want to make it as unfair as it has to be so democrat win elections.
I don't really get anything you've just said.
No, if it were PR it wouldn't be "another 12 states" at all. You simply don't understand PR. You need to go look at some countries which have PR and see that regions don't really matter. People get one vote and if enough people get above the threshold then you get into parliament.
Let's try this.
You have Reps and Dems and then you have a center left and center right party, and a further right and further left party. Six parties, like in Germany.
Under the FPTP post system a voter goes and they see six parties. They want to vote for the center left party but they think "if I vote center left then I split the vote and the Republican wins". A center right winger does the same. So they vote for the main two parties to STOP the other party from winning. Each little area is independent of any other area.
With PR you have someone in Washington who wants to vote for center left and someone in Wyoming who wants to vote center right. They do so, because they know that NATIONWIDE this party will get above the threshold, so they know they will be represented in DC and they'll not be wasting their vote.
So they vote for who they want to vote for.
Let's say this. With FPTP in Congress. 2.9% of the votes didn't go to the Reps and Dems.
In Germany with PR 53.5% of the people voted for the main two parties, in comparison with 97.1% in the US.
Germany has a duel system. FPTP and PR, 8% of people switched their vote from FPTP big parties to PR smaller parties.
The FDP would have got ZERO seats with FPTP because it couldn't get enough votes in a single area to get into parliament. With PR it got 10.7% of the vote and 80 seats out of 700. Just over 10%. So, 10% of people would have basically been disenfranchised.
So, again, back to the US. PR would chance from 97.1% to maybe 66% of the people voting for the main two parties. That would mean that Congress might be 33% Rep, 33% Dem and some smaller parties taking in about 10%.
62.31% of people voted Dem, 36.89% voted Republican.
Dems gained 39 seats and Reps 14
Let's take California. Only two parties won in California. Republicans gained about 25% of the seats and Dems about 75%. Which is a little unfair, right, as California is only 62% Dem but they get 75% of the seats.
With PR what would happen is that Republicans would vote, I'd say about 1/3rd of Republican voters would vote someone else and the same for Democrats.
So, in California you'd have 40% Dems, 24% Reps, and then you'd have a center right party taking about 2/3rds of those Republicans votes, so 8% for the center right, and you'd have 14% for center left and then you'd have 7% for further left and 4% for further right.
This would then pool with all the other states. So, the 4% for further right would not pass a 5% threshold (some do 5% some do 3%), however it would probably get seats in Congress because other states would vote more for this party. Which means the people would be represented.
California would go from being 75% Democrat in Congress, to 40%.
People who want to vote for someone else would vote and their VOTE WOULD COUNT. Right now, it doesn't count.
In primaries Greens got some votes, but then didn't stand in the main event. Why? They know they don't stand a chance. But with PR they'd have a chance.
You really need to understand how PR works.