|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 19 2017 22:32 TheNewEra wrote:Frauke Petry won't be the top candidate for the AFD next Bundestags election or work in a team. Source sadly in German. This will probably hurt the AFD a lot. While not popular within Germany she certainly is with AFD sympathizers. The alternative is probably someone way to the right of her
AfD is like watching the FPÖ history repeat in germany. It's a permanent struggle of politicians that want to create a republican party in Europe, that always seems to end with the liberal, economcially oriented wings giving up and the party swinging more and more to a fascist-type of culture warriors.
|
On April 19 2017 22:37 LightSpectra wrote:
So what's the point of the runoff happening later instead of instantly? That eliminates the primary advantage of instant runoffs, which is that you can vote for who you legitimately think is best instead of strategically voting for whoever is second-worst.
What do you mean with the runoff happening instantly? What kind of voting system is it?
|
On April 19 2017 22:37 LightSpectra wrote:
So what's the point of the runoff happening later instead of instantly? That eliminates the primary advantage of instant runoffs, which is that you can vote for who you legitimately think is best instead of strategically voting for whoever is second-worst.
Primarily, it makes the act of voting simpler. While strategic voting is indeed a problem (and will be in any system where you cast your vote for one single candidate), instant runoff requires voters to rank their candidates. That is both complex for the voters (I know, it sounds trivial, but the number of unintentionally wrongly filled out ballots is already astounding and all you need to do is color/check/mark a box, so imagine when you have to rank them), and for evaluating them.
I agree that instant runoff is far preferrable to all systems currently in place. That said, the French system is still far preferrable to the FPTP system with districts in the US (and UK). Spain has its own monstrosity of a system (it is mindbogglingly dumb).
|
On April 19 2017 22:42 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:37 LightSpectra wrote:
So what's the point of the runoff happening later instead of instantly? That eliminates the primary advantage of instant runoffs, which is that you can vote for who you legitimately think is best instead of strategically voting for whoever is second-worst. What do you mean with the runoff happening instantly? What kind of voting system is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
In an instant runoff, you number all of the candidates by preference. In France, you have a runoff two weeks after the election if nobody procured a majority, but that's still two rounds of FPTP.
So what's the difference... Say I really liked one of those smaller candidates like Poutou. In instant-runoff, I can vote for them and it not go to waste because after they are eliminated, my vote will then go to Hamon, and then Mélenchon. In France, it would be dumb of the left to let all of their candidates split the vote and ultimately none of them make it to the second round, so it is substantially the same as FPTP.
On April 19 2017 22:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:37 LightSpectra wrote:
So what's the point of the runoff happening later instead of instantly? That eliminates the primary advantage of instant runoffs, which is that you can vote for who you legitimately think is best instead of strategically voting for whoever is second-worst. Primarily, it makes the act of voting simpler. While strategic voting is indeed a problem (and will be in any system where you cast your vote for one single candidate), instant runoff requires voters to rank their candidates. That is both complex for the voters (I know, it sounds trivial, but the number of unintentionally wrongly filled out ballots is already astounding and all you need to do is color/check/mark a box, so imagine when you have to rank them), and for evaluating them. I agree that instant runoff is far preferrable to all systems currently in place. That said, the French system is still far preferrable to the FPTP system with districts in the US (and UK). Spain has its own monstrosity of a system (it is mindbogglingly dumb).
You could set up an instant-runoff ballot without it being too confusing, especially if it was digital. It's unlikely you'd suddenly get a million votes for Pat Buchanan that way.
|
On April 19 2017 22:37 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:28 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2017 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah could be anybody, my guess is Macron and Le Pen still, they seem to have settled in. IIRC Mélenchon underperformed his polling results in 2012 by a huge margin but I don't think this will happen this year, he seems to have more momentum but I guess it'll not be quite enough. If I have read the information correctly there are a huge amount of undecided French people, I'm guessing most of these aren't actually undecided but are shy to say they are voting for Francois Fillon and Le Pen so I think those two will make the final 2 and then Fillon will win the 2nd vote. None of the polls are done by phone, so why would people be “shy” to express their votes by Internet? On the contrary, Fillon and Le Pen are the ones who are the closest to their highest potential. They have the most determined base for weeks. The uncertainty is rather at their left... to avoid their meeting in the second round.
In the UK the online polls in 2015 were much further away from the correct poll result than the phone polls. I think younger people and generally less conservative people by their nature are more likely to voice their support online which artificially heightens the % for certain candidates. This is supposed to be accounted for in the weighting for the polls but it hasn't worked recently in the UK at least but maybe the French Polls are much more accurate.
I still expect Fillon to gain more support than the polls suggest as people would be "shy" to say they are going vote for him with his corruption scandal and Thatcherite policies. Le Pen I expect the same with people not wanting to be thought of as a racist etc. but she is apparently also drawing support for a lot of young people which might not go out an vote so maybe her Poll lead is exaggerated too.
|
On April 19 2017 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On April 19 2017 22:37 LightSpectra wrote:
So what's the point of the runoff happening later instead of instantly? That eliminates the primary advantage of instant runoffs, which is that you can vote for who you legitimately think is best instead of strategically voting for whoever is second-worst. What do you mean with the runoff happening instantly? What kind of voting system is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votingIn an instant runoff, you number all of the candidates by preference. In France, you have a runoff two weeks after the election if nobody procured a majority, but that's still two rounds of FPTP. So what's the difference... Say I really liked one of those smaller candidates like Dupont-Aignan. In instant-runoff, I can vote for them and it not go to waste because after they are eliminated, my vote will then go to Hamon, and then Mélenchon. In France, it would be dumb of the left to let all of their candidates split the vote and ultimately none of them make it to the second round, so it is substantially the same as FPTP.
Ah yes, the ranked voting. Yeah it would solve the necessary herding behaviour at the left to weigh. Thing is, we almost never get to discuss voting systems (barring more proportional for the législatives) because most of the main candidates don't even want to touch the institutions to begin with. The governmental parties, which benefit from the current system up to the grotesque (35-55% of the voices in the first round of the presidential can translate to 90% of the seats in the Assemblée...), of course want no change. That's the nice thing with Mélenchon's proposed Constituent assembly, we could actually discuss things like this. The massive distortion between the represented and the representatives, sociologically and politically, makes our “democracy” devoid of substance.
|
That's the thing about FPTP; it naturally favors the biggest two parties, so they're never going to want to change it. However it's really hard to argue that instant-runoff or Concordet aren't vastly superior for democracy.
|
On April 19 2017 22:56 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:37 TheDwf wrote:On April 19 2017 22:28 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2017 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah could be anybody, my guess is Macron and Le Pen still, they seem to have settled in. IIRC Mélenchon underperformed his polling results in 2012 by a huge margin but I don't think this will happen this year, he seems to have more momentum but I guess it'll not be quite enough. If I have read the information correctly there are a huge amount of undecided French people, I'm guessing most of these aren't actually undecided but are shy to say they are voting for Francois Fillon and Le Pen so I think those two will make the final 2 and then Fillon will win the 2nd vote. None of the polls are done by phone, so why would people be “shy” to express their votes by Internet? On the contrary, Fillon and Le Pen are the ones who are the closest to their highest potential. They have the most determined base for weeks. The uncertainty is rather at their left... to avoid their meeting in the second round. In the UK the online polls in 2015 were much further away from the correct poll result than the phone polls. I think younger people and generally less conservative people by their nature are more likely to voice their support online which artificially heightens the % for certain candidates. This is supposed to be accounted for in the weighting for the polls but it hasn't worked recently in the UK at least but maybe the French Polls are much more accurate. I still expect Fillon to gain more support than the polls suggest as people would be "shy" to say they are going vote for him with his corruption scandal and Thatcherite policies. Le Pen I expect the same with people not wanting to be thought of as a racist etc. but she is apparently also drawing support for a lot of young people which might not go out an vote so maybe her Poll lead is exaggerated too.
All of this is just guessing. The polls are accurate up to a certain point. The uncertainty of the polls is generally also captured. Making any predictions about which way that uncertainty will go is just gambling. Trump overperformed, Wilders underperformed. In 2012 Le Pen (very) slightly overperformed. But drawing conclusions from such things is just guessing.
|
On April 19 2017 02:30 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 01:39 Velr wrote:
The main issues with France for me are, this is just my opinion, that its very centralised and that your a little too strike happy (like germans are not enough strike happy) and the whole politics/diplomatic school career thing (its fine for diplomats, but thats a profession, politician imho shouldn't be). These are minor issues when compared to most other systems.
All else? The critics are mostly idiots that are a bit too good off for their own good.
The single biggest issue with France is indeed its centralization, built around the founding myth that every citizen is just like another, and in the end is not so much an individual with distinct traits, sensibilities, and qualities, but more importantly an interchangeable piece of the big State-machine.
i, for myself, think that considering the mentality of french people, anything than centralization would create some wannabe president in every region and would lead to a bigger mess than what we already have
|
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf?
|
On April 19 2017 22:21 TheDwf wrote:Given the amount of inflammatory statements from the last days, Le Pen was a bit stressed by her dynamic in polls: - She had the EU flag removed behind her in a TV interview (the decoration was a simulation of l'Élysée) - Philippot, the Front National n°2, called the EU flag an “oligarchic rag” and claimed that they will soon “put it in a closet” - Le Pen claimed that in the 17th century, “maybe protestants had demands which conflicted with the nation” (she had just quoted Richelieu as one of the historic figures who inspire her, to which the journalist replied that he had not been very friendly to protestants) - She claimed that, had she been in power, terrorist attacks would not have happened - She said that colonization “brought a lot, especially in Algeria,” adding that “even Algerians of good faith admit it” - She wants a “moratorium on legal immigration” (apparently targetting long-period visas) - She repeated that she wants to terminate le droit du sol [birthright citizenship] - Her fathed publicly called to vote for her When in danger, fly back to the fundamentals, uh?
L'arbre tombe du côté où il penche
+ Show Spoiler +aka she's being stupid and that will be her downfall
|
On April 20 2017 04:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf?
Given that Switzerland is probably the most decentralized state in the world... who is in charge in your Kanton's and how much power do those people actually hold?
|
On April 20 2017 04:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf?
There's a good point to be made that decentralization is creating much more corruption and problems than centralisation. A good case study is China were the Communist party tactically moved responsibility to the local cities and municipalities to avoid the scrutiny that comes with doing things at the highest level.
It's actually really difficult to be a corrupt federal politician. The news cycle and spotlight is so intense that you can't get away with anything. But go to a rural community and check out what's going on in the administration. The idea that local politicians are super loyal and honest because they face a lot of scrutiny is kind of a myth. There's a reason why big Conservative think tanks are no fans of centralized government.
|
Norway28894 Posts
what? You think their reasoning is that they want it to be easier to be corrupt? That's what it sounds like but it's not an argument I'd expect from you..
|
On April 19 2017 22:32 TheNewEra wrote:Frauke Petry won't be the top candidate for the AFD next Bundestags election or work in a team. Source sadly in German. This will probably hurt the AFD a lot. While not popular within Germany she certainly is with AFD sympathizers. The alternative is probably someone way to the right of her
correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't Petry already the rightwing alternative that seized power? iirc the party was initially more on Bernd Lucke only that he got ousted in 2015 because he was more about the economical aspects of all that anti-EU while Petry was more about everything else.
So we're going even further to the populist right now?
That being said and while I absolutely detest them it's probably the right thing to do from their point of view. The AfD is really struggling right now compared to what they used to be a couple months ago. So some change-up might end up in them getting some voters back?
On April 19 2017 22:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:32 TheNewEra wrote:Frauke Petry won't be the top candidate for the AFD next Bundestags election or work in a team. Source sadly in German. This will probably hurt the AFD a lot. While not popular within Germany she certainly is with AFD sympathizers. The alternative is probably someone way to the right of her AfD is like watching the FPÖ history repeat in germany. It's a permanent struggle of politicians that want to create a republican party in Europe, that always seems to end with the liberal, economcially oriented wings giving up and the party swinging more and more to a fascist-type of culture warriors.
yeah pretty much
|
On April 20 2017 06:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what? You think their reasoning is that they want it to be easier to be corrupt? That's what it sounds like but it's not an argument I'd expect from you..
No, I don't think anybody wants corruption of course, but it is easy to sell locality and close politicians as considerate, down to earth and what not, but it often leads to corruption. On the other hand centralisation has a very bad reputation and people easily blame federal politicians, but it's actually much harder to be compromised at that level.
There's a very strong impulse on the left as well to just decentralize everything and to do away with the big institutions, but it's not a good idea I think.
|
There are quite a lot of politicians and high level bureaucrats that are actively involved in creating corruption. A quote from a private conversation with some low-tier party representative: "Creating legal loopholes is good, it makes the products cheaper and the country more competitive."
Try to create a coherent legislative template these days in cooperation with a ministry. It basically goes like this: Give your suggestions to the ministry, have them come back with 50 exceptions because "you can trust these type of people/businnesses, no need to raise their cost through regulations" then have a bunch of lawyers go reformulate it over and over again to make it juristically compatible (i.e. so that you don't understand how to technically implement it anymore, but hey, more jobs for jurists). Politicians simply turn a blind eye on a ton of stuff when it comes to apeasing certain influential groups and in my experience conservative and nationalist-liberals have been the worst.
|
We do instant runoff in Australia. In fact I think we do it unexpectedly well. The system was even updated last election to make it easier and clearer.
I was not aware it was so rare, but 10/10 would recommend.
|
On April 20 2017 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 04:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf? There's a good point to be made that decentralization is creating much more corruption and problems than centralisation. A good case study is China were the Communist party tactically moved responsibility to the local cities and municipalities to avoid the scrutiny that comes with doing things at the highest level. It's actually really difficult to be a corrupt federal politician. The news cycle and spotlight is so intense that you can't get away with anything. But go to a rural community and check out what's going on in the administration. The idea that local politicians are super loyal and honest because they face a lot of scrutiny is kind of a myth. There's a reason why big Conservative think tanks are no fans of centralized government.
Do you have any sources to back up the claims that decentralisation increases corruption and that the communist party in China decentralised because it makes corruption easier?
|
It's actually really difficult to be a corrupt federal politician.
So? You just bribe the local authority. You don't need to bribe the big shot politicians, just the guys overseeing stuff locally which are allways there. I fail to see how centralisation or decentralisation has much to do with this. Socities are allways, to variing degrees, corrupt. Can't bribe the bigshot politician in Paris? Well, bribe his local officer (and i fail to see how "uncorruptable/less criminal" Fillion, Sarkozy and other French politicians are thanks to "media Attention").
Bringing up China for anything when it comes to how democratic countries rule themselves is also never "a good case to be made".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
