EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1593
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18840 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 24 2015 03:54 wei2coolman wrote: Obviously there are going to be a couple democrats that currently benefit from gerrymandering, but as a whole our current congress is by far and away more conservative than the average american. I think your perception of what constitutes an average American skews towards densely populated urban areas. There is a great variety of regional differences that make some generalization as you're making absurd. I think this whole gerrymandering fixation is misplaced, like liberals need some unifying boogie man to unite disparate groups in focusing their anger. The roots go much deeper for resentment of representatives, feelings of powerlessness to change D.C.'s direction, the culture of corruption, and incumbency. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23514 Posts
So long as it's easier to get lots of ignorant people to show up and vote for something they don't understand than it is to make complicated policy points and explain the importance to the voters, politicians are going to continue to appeal to our lowest common denominators (and be successful with it). What's new now is that Democrats have finally turned the tables a bit. Instead of Democrats having to perform long winded explanations on minutia regarding why specific proposals were good/bad ideas while Republicans got away with bumper sticker slogans now it is the opposite. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I for one, would like to try out less direct elections at some point, at least on a state scale. Electing people who then make the choice. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:04 zlefin wrote: I concur with slaughter in that a none of the above option would be beneficial; though I think it would come up quite rarely, it'd still be good to have. I for one, would like to try out less direct elections at some point, at least on a state scale. Electing people who then make the choice. Well, the US already has both those options in reality. You could just not vote, and it appears many people here took my snarky line about Republicans winning to point out that they won with very low turnout, which is why they're not using the word "mandate" like Democrats did after 2008 and 2012. And the US, on both the federal and state levels, are in general republics, which is why we choose elected officials in the first place. The rare example of direct democracy is California's referendum system, and it's not widely regarded as a great thing (mostly because Californians vote for big spending policies but against taxes; they also voted to ban gay marriage and to enforce English-only education). Interestingly, for presidential elections, it seems most people might prefer MORE directness and there are complaints to get rid of the Electoral College every time. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
a vote for no one isn't the same as a vote that prohibits either of the two candidates from winning, so that's just plain different. the start of your second paragraph isn't really on point, so skipping that. The problem with the electoral system is that a) it isn't at all used to have the electors actually think about who to choose (and hence it has no value from that intended part of it), and b) in practice, it's just a direct election with a really weird scoring system that can go against the popular vote. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:34 zlefin wrote: That's not really true; a vote for no one isn't the same as a vote that prohibits either of the two candidates from winning, so that's just plain different. the start of your second paragraph isn't really on point, so skipping that. The problem with the electoral system is that a) it isn't at all used to have the electors actually think about who to choose (and hence it has no value from that intended part of it), and b) in practice, it's just a direct election with a really weird scoring system that can go against the popular vote. But why would you want a system that has no winner at all and another election has to be held? Even without the empty calories of Super PACs and such, elections are expensive and inefficient, since nobody is doing any government work while it's going on. I think you'd be better off talking about reforming the primary system where each party picks their own candidate separately and then they compete against each other. As for the Electoral College, you're ending up with a very strange definition of "thinking", where it actually just means defying the popular vote since as your argument implies they're "not thinking" because they always go with the majority vote. I'm not sure why it's sustainable to have electors who unpredictably defy their own district majorities... | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11686 Posts
Citizens should have the ability to vote for "This is all shit, i want something else". That is not possible in a two party system. As you correctly identified, not voting counting as "neither of those guys" would break pretty much any democratic system and trap it in a constant election, which is not good. On the other hand, having the possibility to actually create a new party based on different issues, and NOT having to instantly get 50% of a vote to matter at all is a really good thing for a democratic system. A vote between only two choices, with no possibility of ever adding an additional one is only slightly better than the election between one choice that communist states had, and rather far from an actual working democracy. Especially when you have presidential elections where only a few states actually matter because the others are so red or blue that noone gives a fuck about them and a system of legal corruption that most third-world rulers would love to have. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 24 2015 09:00 Simberto wrote: Well, the problem here is that originally, the point of the election college was that it is really hard to communicated over a large area in the 18th century. This is no longer a problem. Thus, the only remaining point of that system is to make scoring when electing a president really weird, and it also further enforces the silly two party FPTP system that you have going on. Citizens should have the ability to vote for "This is all shit, i want something else". That is not possible in a two party system. As you correctly identified, not voting counting as "neither of those guys" would break pretty much any democratic system and trap it in a constant election, which is not good. On the other hand, having the possibility to actually create a new party based on different issues, and NOT having to instantly get 50% of a vote to matter at all is a really good thing for a democratic system. A vote between only two choices, with no possibility of ever adding an additional one is only slightly better than the election between one choice that communist states had, and rather far from an actual working democracy. Especially when you have presidential elections where only a few states actually matter because the others are so red or blue that noone gives a fuck about them and a system of legal corruption that most third-world rulers would love to have. Well, I think it's several bridges too far to hope America changes to a proper parliamentary system. As I noted before, the existing incumbents got here because they're good at this game and it's beyond wishful thinking to ask them to change the game, particularly if it might threaten their position. I will quibble with your characterization of the Electoral College. Predictability is not the same as irrelevance, especially as you note, in this day and age where we've gotten pretty good at polling and forecasting. Don't go Romney on us now and insist the other 47% doesn't matter. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 24 2015 09:00 Simberto wrote: Well, the problem here is that originally, the point of the election college was that it is really hard to communicated over a large area in the 18th century. This is no longer a problem. Thus, the only remaining point of that system is to make scoring when electing a president really weird, and it also further enforces the silly two party FPTP system that you have going on. Citizens should have the ability to vote for "This is all shit, i want something else". That is not possible in a two party system. As you correctly identified, not voting counting as "neither of those guys" would break pretty much any democratic system and trap it in a constant election, which is not good. On the other hand, having the possibility to actually create a new party based on different issues, and NOT having to instantly get 50% of a vote to matter at all is a really good thing for a democratic system. A vote between only two choices, with no possibility of ever adding an additional one is only slightly better than the election between one choice that communist states had, and rather far from an actual working democracy. Especially when you have presidential elections where only a few states actually matter because the others are so red or blue that noone gives a fuck about them and a system of legal corruption that most third-world rulers would love to have. In the US you can have more than two parties and you can have candidates that run counter to the party they belong to. In some ways there's less choice compared to European Parliamentary systems, but in other ways there's more choice. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 24 2015 10:25 Slaughter wrote: You can but its not really viable unless you can raise shitloads of cash by yourself and do it without the political infrastructure that the Dems and Repubs have. Sure, but my point wasn't exclusively about the viability of a 3rd party or independents. Parties in the US are not entirely synonymous with parties in Europe, so comparing the two systems by 'number of parties' misses too much of what goes on. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:49 coverpunch wrote: But why would you want a system that has no winner at all and another election has to be held? Even without the empty calories of Super PACs and such, elections are expensive and inefficient, since nobody is doing any government work while it's going on. I think you'd be better off talking about reforming the primary system where each party picks their own candidate separately and then they compete against each other. As for the Electoral College, you're ending up with a very strange definition of "thinking", where it actually just means defying the popular vote since as your argument implies they're "not thinking" because they always go with the majority vote. I'm not sure why it's sustainable to have electors who unpredictably defy their own district majorities... on the first, incumbents tend to win elections a lot. Sometimes other people win though. But, if the candidates are SO UTTERLY TERRIBLE that they lose to NONE OF THE ABOVE, then I think it's worthwhile to insist on going to the trouble of getting other people. I mean seriously, how bad do they have to be to lose to none of the above? Another of my goals is to change the election process to vastly speed it up and add efficiency, and remove the expense (at least for the people who actually have the offices), though that's really on a separate set of ideas than the none of the above rule. On electoral college, it's more that I probably have a clear idea in my head, and it's not communicated clearly, so it looks odd. It's not about defying district majorities, it's about having a selection process that's ACTUALLY indirect, e.g. where the electors are voted for as people you trust to make the decision on who should be president, then the electors go over all the candidates (and they can look at a lot more people than is usually done in elections, since it can go more like a normal hiring process). That way the person who would actually become president doesn't have to spend much time campaigning (in theory at least), as they have to convince the electors not the broad mass of the populace. And the electors can make a real point of looking at who's staying to do their job rather than around campaigning. I'm pretty sure I still haven't explained it all that clearly, translating ideas in my head, with all the little details, to something for other people, can take awhile. I'll post later with some more explanation as I clear it up in my head. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
On January 24 2015 03:25 wei2coolman wrote: You just addressed the issue right there as to why I think gerrymandering is a bigger problem. Right now representatives (especially congress) only have to run pandering one side of the political scale due to their districts, as opposed to running a more moderate campaign that accounts for both left and right wing political considerations in a more politically homogenous district. Of course limiting terms is definitely a step in the right direction, and it is much easier to implement than gerrymandering rules/laws. If districts were more gerrymandered then you would be allowed to run as moderate as you like  But you can't fix the concentration problem, if liberals are more closely packed and blue areas are overall more homogeneous, then how is redrawing a district going to fix that? Surely redrawing a district to ensure "moderation" is as bad as redrawing one to ensure a victory for your party? Both are manipulating the electoral map for the sake of a desired political outcome, and both lead to some very odd districts in terms of shape and constitution.So there needs to be some more neutral way of drawing them, imo preferably taking into account geography or communities, perhaps paying particular attention to county lines. The goal is not to split things 50/50. But all this is theory and kind of needless guesswork, since gerrymandering is low on the list of issues that need to be fixed right now. zlefin is not making a whole lot of sense, but I don't think his concerns/remedies are well-founded/needed. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10823 Posts
I really don't see how anyone could think the way it is done in the US makes sense. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 24 2015 21:46 Introvert wrote: If districts were more gerrymandered then you would be allowed to run as moderate as you like But you can't fix the concentration problem, if liberals are more closely packed and blue areas are overall more homogeneous, then how is redrawing a district going to fix that? Surely redrawing a district to ensure "moderation" is as bad as redrawing one to ensure a victory for your party? Both are manipulating the electoral map for the sake of a desired political outcome, and both lead to some very odd districts in terms of shape and constitution.So there needs to be some more neutral way of drawing them, imo preferably taking into account geography or communities, perhaps paying particular attention to county lines. The goal is not to split things 50/50. But all this is theory and kind of needless guesswork, since gerrymandering is low on the list of issues that need to be fixed right now. zlefin is not making a whole lot of sense, but I don't think his concerns/remedies are well-founded/needed. you solve it by making every vote count equally within a bigger pool, like at the state level or even nationally. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 24 2015 23:25 Velr wrote: Don't most countries just use their state/city/counties/whatever "borders" for this? I really don't see how anyone could think the way it is done in the US makes sense. It doesn't. Americans just support it because "'MURICA IS ALWAYS RIGHT!" | ||
| ||
