EPTThe Idea that even an elected group of people are entrusted with the ability to invest executive power being a good thing is a thoroughly aristocratic notion and is directly opposed to any good republic spirit.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5774
| 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
The Idea that even an elected group of people are entrusted with the ability to invest executive power being a good thing is a thoroughly aristocratic notion and is directly opposed to any good republic spirit. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 27 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote: what's the fear over executive power anyway. some people are fighting an imaginary war with the state. Uh, the state != the executive. Checks and balances are what makes it a democracy. I have no desire to fight an war, imaginary or otherwise, with the state, but I also think the Congress should sign off on whether we go to war, that Presidents shouldn't be allowed to set up secret prisons, and that they shouldn't be allowed to create "kill lists" where they can assassinate dudes all around the world without due process and outside of war zones. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41976 Posts
On October 27 2016 01:55 Sermokala wrote: the biggest Problem with a parliamentary system is that there is almost never a party with a majority winning an election. forcing a party to enter into a coalition and an end to any clear mandate from the people. With a two party system at the very least you have an indicator for which side holds sway in one area or another. The Idea that even an elected group of people are entrusted with the ability to invest executive power being a good thing is a thoroughly aristocratic notion and is directly opposed to any good republic spirit. This is thoroughly untrue. Parliamentary systems can use FPTP with a two party system and often do, the British model for example. FPTP produces strong majorities and very rarely results in coalition. It's one of the very few advantages of it as a system. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 27 2016 01:59 Yoav wrote: Uh, the state != the executive. Checks and balances are what makes it a democracy. I have no desire to fight an war, imaginary or otherwise, with the state, but I also think the Congress should sign off on whether we go to war, that Presidents shouldn't be allowed to set up secret prisons, and that they shouldn't be allowed to create "kill lists" where they can assassinate dudes all around the world without due process and outside of war zones. the assumption here is that people who get worked up about this issue have a rather hostile imagination of what the executive is about. it's about the imperial presidency, overreach of security agencies and so on. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 27 2016 01:27 zlefin wrote: might be available now where I am, I don't think it was in the past. To be more precise, it's not that ther'es no system for voting by mail, it's that the voting by mail system was only to be used by those with a genuine need for it, who would not be able to appear on election day. Nevertheless, I think voting by mail is a good way to make an informed vote with far less hassle than usually accompanies going to a polling station. Postage is relatively cheap and it gives the election officials plenty of time to count the votes. They just have to verify signatures for the mailed ballots, and I've never seen that as being a particularly troublesome affair. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 27 2016 02:02 KwarK wrote: This is thoroughly untrue. Parliamentary systems can use FPTP with a two party system and often do, the British model for example. FPTP produces strong majorities and very rarely results in coalition. It's one of the very few advantages of it as a system. Yes, the current Canadian system usually results in a majority government, and when a minority does occur it's generally because of a weak confidence in the elected leading party. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 27 2016 02:19 LegalLord wrote: Nevertheless, I think voting by mail is a good way to make an informed vote with far less hassle than usually accompanies going to a polling station. Postage is relatively cheap and it gives the election officials plenty of time to count the votes. They just have to verify signatures for the mailed ballots, and I've never seen that as being a particularly troublesome affair. I'm not saying it's bad, i'm merely commenting on the system as it is or was. There's also the fact that absentee ballots are where most fraud occurs when there is fraud. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 27 2016 02:00 JW_DTLA wrote: People always bag on the two party system, but it forces coalition building BEFORE the election instead of after like in Parliamentary systems. The modern Democratic party is the broadest and most diverse coalition of voters ever assembled. If we had a parliamentary system we would have the Bernie bros off in a corner wanking to dreams of banning the corporations while the multi-cultural group would have all the POC in a lump. These little parties would then never attract the broadly liberal managerial class that makes most of the donations to the Democratic party. That we have a two party system forces all these groups together and makes them compromise. Also, the two party system guarantees that the largest possible coalition of voters chooses the next government, as opposed to a series of racial parties making deals. Agreed, but people rarely get past what the news is telling them. News networks have been selling the two parties as the “left vs right, red vs blue” for so long that people assume this has been the default of the parties or they have also been so monolithic. But the Republicans are not one party and it shows. The Democrats are more unified nationally when it comes to the general election, but break down to smaller groups at the state level. I do believe the parties need to rethink the way they portray themselves to the public and highlight that they are a collation of interested groups, rather than a unified body. It will be better for them in the long term. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
Basically lets just assume there were 4 parties, and for simplicity they were strictly on a onedimensional scale, call it left to right: A-B-C-D The two party system basically forces AB to go against CD, and there is simply no way to ever get a BC center coalition. So you lack the possibilty for a shift by one step, but you are always ending closer to the extremes. And when then suddenly, as is currently is happening, the outer wing in one party starts to dominate, it goes downhill for everyone. What is basically happening is, that D dominated the CD block. This led to Cb (C with a slight tendency towards b) to desert the party, which just manifested D's dominance in the CD block. But now suddenly for the AB block it is much easier to grab those Cb voters (and the Bc voters are secured automatically too), so they can basically say FU to their A block. A has no options. AB, even though its policy is now almost entirely B is still by far the closest choice, so either they don't vote (and get shamed, for possibly letting the Dc candidate win) or they are forced into still voting B. I mean, you can just look at this thread and see tendencies. I certainly don't agree with people like Danglars, xDaunt or GH on policy. But I don't think that the isolation of those voters can be a good feature of the system. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41976 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On October 27 2016 03:17 KwarK wrote: I think the opposite occurs. There is a tendency for the CD party to take the D votes for granted because they're not about to vote for AB so they lean closer to the centre to try to win a few B votes. Two party systems tend to disenfranchise extremists in their competition for the centrists. PR gives extremists accurate representation. And this is also why every primary is always "the guy who might win the general election" trying to be as centrist as possible without getting blown out by someone more extreme. Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz and Trump are all examples of candidates who (previously) only served to make Kasich, Johnson, Romney and McCain have a harder time in the general election. On October 27 2016 03:21 TheYango wrote: If you treat compromise toward center as disenfranchisement of the extreme, then one extreme is always going to be disenfranchised. Satisfying both extremes is impossible if both sides treat compromise as unacceptable. Green party wants the EPA to be the most powerful agency in our country. Libertarians don't want the EPA to even exist. Its an impossible balance. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On October 27 2016 02:22 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, the current Canadian system usually results in a majority government, and when a minority does occur it's generally because of a weak confidence in the elected leading party. That and a no-confidence vote can trigger an election. If the government doesn't work we can quickly elect one that does, I am frankly shocked the US can go years without passing a budget. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 27 2016 03:05 mahrgell wrote: I mean, you can just look at this thread and see tendencies. I certainly don't agree with people like Danglars, xDaunt or GH on policy. But I don't think that the isolation of those voters can be a good feature of the system. They're actually way less isolated because undermining a two party system through grassroots movements is much easier than influencing government through a third party in a multi party system. Just look at the influence of the tea party. Third parties in multi party systems don't really do anything. They get two ministry posts if they form a coalition and that's it. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 27 2016 02:19 LegalLord wrote: Nevertheless, I think voting by mail is a good way to make an informed vote with far less hassle than usually accompanies going to a polling station. Postage is relatively cheap and it gives the election officials plenty of time to count the votes. They just have to verify signatures for the mailed ballots, and I've never seen that as being a particularly troublesome affair. The state of California mails me a sample ballot that I read and jot down selections and notes for research. I then take that into the polling station on Election Day and it's easy as pie. I couldn't imagine doing informed voting any other way. | ||
|
pmh
1351 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21352 Posts
On October 27 2016 04:20 pmh wrote: Trump I think can still win this election but he has to find the exact right angle of attack. The media went to far with demonizing trump and ignoring all of HRC,s mistakes. This does give trump an opening. Ima mail the trump campaign a detailed strategy for the final 2 weeks,i hope they will read it lol. yes. they demonized Trump by giving literal quotes and ignored Hillary's mistakes that never happened... | ||
| ||
