US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5758
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. | ||
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
![]()
Gorsameth
Netherlands21351 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:00 plasmidghost wrote: An important facet of any healthy democracy is the free exchange of ideas on how to run government, even if, and especially if, you disagree with them. Having only two viable choices is an awful form of government. Three's only slightly better, but it is an improvement nonetheless. I hate political parties and would get rid of them if I could, but that's not going to happen so I'll try to change the current system into one I want, where many political parties are seen as viable and people have far more viable choices for candidates at every political level. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Gary Johnson and hope that the Libertarian Party can become just as recognized as the Republicans and Democrats. The parties themselves are not the problem. FPTP is. Any winner takes all election system will resolve itself to a 2 party system. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41965 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:00 plasmidghost wrote: An important facet of any healthy democracy is the free exchange of ideas on how to run government, even if, and especially if, you disagree with them. Having only two viable choices is an awful form of government. Three's only slightly better, but it is an improvement nonetheless. I hate political parties and would get rid of them if I could, but that's not going to happen so I'll try to change the current system into one I want, where many political parties are seen as viable and people have far more viable choices for candidates at every political level. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Gary Johnson and hope that the Libertarian Party can become just as recognized as the Republicans and Democrats. That's fine because you're not in a swing state. The Founding Fathers already made your vote completely irrelevant when they created the electoral system. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: what kwark really means is that your opinions can be reflected in the senate and house, rather than the executive branch. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:05 KwarK wrote: That's fine because you're not in a swing state. The Founding Fathers already made your vote completely irrelevant when they created the electoral system. I wish that system was gone, I don't understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to do that, where it makes like 75% of the country's votes irrelevant | ||
las91
United States5080 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:14 plasmidghost wrote: I wish that system was gone, I don't understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to do that, where it makes like 75% of the country's votes irrelevant Because the Founding Fathers only wanted the rich, wealthy, educated elite landowners to be the votes that counted, what better way than to separate them into a complete other part of the republic | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41965 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:06 Plansix wrote: It wasn't always winner take all. The initial design was that second place was vice president. But that created its own set of problems that were addressed by the dual tickets. The design of the executive branch promotes a winner take all system because there is only one office to fill. Edit: what kwark really means is that your opinions can be reflected in the senate and house, rather than the executive branch. 1 job to fill isn't the problem. If the electoral college was scrapped and it was done by popular vote, or if the electoral college votes awarded in states was proportionate to the popular vote in states, voting in non swing states wouldn't be pointless. | ||
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:18 las91 wrote: Because the Founding Fathers only wanted the rich, wealthy, educated elite landowners to be the votes that counted, what better way than to separate them into a complete other part of the republic We're taught all throughout school how good they were but I never saw it | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:23 KwarK wrote: 1 job to fill isn't the problem. If the electoral college was scrapped and it was done by popular vote, or if the electoral college votes awarded in states was proportionate to the popular vote in states, voting in non swing states wouldn't be pointless. Pretty sure they had that debate when they were writing it and decided that a pure popular vote would put to much power in the major population centers, rather than with each of the states. | ||
zf
231 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:03 Gorsameth wrote:The parties themselves are not the problem. FPTP is. Any winner takes all election system will resolve itself to a 2 party system. Most countries that use FPTP don't have two-party systems. It's a phenomenon that's somewhat unique to the United States. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:38 zf wrote: Most countries that use FPTP don't have two-party systems. It's a phenomenon that's somewhat unique to the United States. is there a handy source which looks at the various other countries, and why they have the number of parties they do? wiki data has stuff for each part, but no explanation, and doesn't have a decent party-count alongside the system. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41965 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:37 Plansix wrote: Pretty sure they had that debate when they were writing it and decided that a pure popular vote would put to much power in the major population centers, rather than with each of the states. Even then, they could have had states award electoral college votes with PR rather than as a bloc. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41965 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:38 zf wrote: Most countries that use FPTP don't have two-party systems. It's a phenomenon that's somewhat unique to the United States. Care to name a handful? Obviously Parliamentary systems are a little different but with the exception of regional third parties which are competitive in their area but not nationally I feel like two party is the rule. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 25 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Lmao you guys are getting triggered real hard by those veritas videos. James O'Keefe is a piece of shit human being who clearly demonstrated during the ACORN fiasco that he has no qualms with ruining people's lives to push his twisted "activism". So excuse me if I think the man doesn't deserve any publicity whatsoever. The only reason the guy is still relevant at all is because Breitbart hired him anyway even after he was revealed to be a known fraud. | ||
zf
231 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:51 KwarK wrote: Care to name a handful? Obviously Parliamentary systems are a little different but with the exception of regional third parties which are competitive in their area but not nationally I feel like two party is the rule. Sure, of the presidential systems that use FPTP, there are more two-party systems than not. But even then, there are some notable outliers. Liberia for one. Pakistan and the Philippines are also multi-party, although they're not entirely FPTP, from what I remember. Edit: From Wikipedia, it also seems like some of the Sub-Saharan African states, e.g., Tanzania, Uganda, etc., have both presidential systems and FPTP without descending into two-party systems. I don't know enough about them to say whether that's just a short-term trend, though. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 25 2016 09:58 TheYango wrote: James O'Keefe is a piece of shit human being who clearly demonstrated during the ACORN fiasco that he has no qualms with ruining people's lives to push his twisted "activism". So excuse me if I think the man doesn't deserve any publicity whatsoever. The only reason the guy is still relevant at all is because Breitbart hired him anyway even after he was revealed to be a known fraud. That's fine, James O'Keefe is a piece of shit, cool. He didn't force Creamer to say directly on camera that he communicated with Clinton regarding 'Donald ducks' to agitate Trump supporters. That is most likely a violation of laws preventing communication between PACS and campaigns. He didn't force the DNC to fire two people. Explain to me why the people in the video said what they did, instead of attacking O'keefe. I suspect your tune would be quite different if it was trump under attack by a muddied source. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
however, to exercise such influence the left has to actually engage on the level of policy, rather than devolve into a protest and conspiracy movement. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
It does take some time for organized parties to build up. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The cost of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is expected to rise an average of 22 percent in 2017, according to information released by the Obama administration Monday afternoon. Still, federal subsidies will also rise, meaning that few people are likely to have to pay the full cost after the rate increases to get insurance coverage. "We think they will ultimately be surprised by the affordability of the premiums, because the tax credits track with the increases in premiums," said Kevin Griffis, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. During a media briefing Monday, Griffis said the 2017 rates are roughly at the level the Congressional Budget Office forecast when the law was proposed. "The initial marketplace rates came in below costs," he said. "Many companies set prices that turned out to be too low." Enrollment opens Nov. 1. For coverage effective Jan. 1, people need to pick a plan by Dec. 15. With a few exceptions, the last day to sign up for Obamacare is Jan. 31, 2017. Plans are available on HealthCare.gov and state-run exchanges. While the average premiums on the benchmark health plans are increasing, the government says more than 70 percent of people buying insurance on the marketplaces created by the law could get a health plan for less than $75 a month for 2017. To get the best deal, people would have to pick a low-cost plan with limited benefits and take advantage of all the subsidies available. People who already have coverage through the exchanges can often save money by switching plans, the administration said. More than three-quarters of people could save money by switching to the lowest-cost plan within the level of coverage, such as bronze or silver, that they've previously selected. The Obamacare insurance exchanges are under strain after three major insurers pulled back from offering coverage in markets across the U.S. The administration says about 1 in 5 people buying insurance through the marketplaces will have only one company offering coverage. It's in places like that where consumers will feel the most pain. "Where it really matters is where a big insurance company has exited and where that's going to leave just one company remaining," said Cynthia Cox, associate director of health reform and private insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "For those people who live in that area, many people may have to switch plans. And they won't have much choice if they want to receive financial assistance and purchase through the exchanges." Source | ||
| ||