|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest.
What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy?
|
On January 12 2022 15:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest. What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy?
I live in Australia where the majority party basically can do anything it wants, the only real check being if they do something really unpopular they will lose the next election.
Is this what you are aiming for? It does has its advantages.
Edit: By holding power I mean, they control Congress/the presidency and can pass laws that they support.
|
The Republicans will get there eventually, if they're left alone theyll have gerrymandered everything to shit, Democrats will remain ineffectual and less popular because of it, and Republicans will firmly control the government for a long time, semi-permanently if the QAnon types are in control.
Its not about whether you want a party to be in firm control, its which one you want to be in firm control in the future.
|
On January 12 2022 15:58 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 15:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest. What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy? I live in Australia where the majority party basically can do anything it wants, the only real check being if they do something really unpopular they will lose the next election. Is this what you are aiming for? It does has its advantages. Edit: By holding power I mean, they control Congress/the presidency and can pass laws that they support. That is simply how a winner takes all system works. It naturally leads to 2 parties and the party in power being able to do what it wants.
The way to fix that is to get rid of winner takes all and change to proportional representation
|
On January 12 2022 15:58 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 15:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest. What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy? I live in Australia where the majority party basically can do anything it wants, the only real check being if they do something really unpopular they will lose the next election. Is this what you are aiming for? It does has its advantages. Edit: By holding power I mean, they control Congress/the presidency and can pass laws that they support.
Yes, that is what I want. It is important for political parties to be able to express their vision and to be held accountable for what they do. The American system allows for a perpetual stalemate where not only is nothing ever accomplished but politicians are never accountable. Parties need to be able to show what they can do and let voters decide if the leadership is good or bad so we can improve.
|
Northern Ireland26763 Posts
The American system is almost uniquely bad in this respect though.
The U.K. system is very much similarly winner takes all, but you still have the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Northern Irish parties, Plaid Cymru, the odd Green MP
To the extent where I think any adoption of a PR system in the US and its just going to be a two party system delivered via PR vs FPTP
I’m not sure why this is the case really, but the extremity of the two party system seems to be almost a uniquely American phenomenon
|
Norway28792 Posts
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation.
|
On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation.
How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass?
|
On January 12 2022 20:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation. How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass? Yes? That is how basically the entire free world works.
If your afraid of a tyranny of the majority. having multiple parties that together form a majority while having their own, but aligned, beliefs makes it hard to force through something extreme because your coalition partner(s) is likely to not agree with you.
|
On January 12 2022 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 20:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation. How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass? Yes? That is how basically the entire free world works. If your afraid of a tyranny of the majority. having multiple parties that together form a majority while having their own, but aligned, beliefs makes it hard to force through something extreme because your coalition partner(s) is likely to not agree with you.
I agree. And I have often argued that the idea that the US operates on a strictly 2 party system is not telling the whole story, as we can plainly see with democrats. In reality, the democratic party is a coalition of a few different sub-parties. Same with republicans. We just cut to the chase and draw the line with the coalitions pre-formed. AOC and Manchin are not the same party. But they are both democrats. They are members of the same coalition.
51 votes against 50 should win every time and it shouldn't even be a thing to discuss. The filibuster is an abomination. The senate is already wildly undemocratic by giving 2 senators to california and also 2 senators to wyoming.
California has 68x the population of Wyoming, but they have the same number of senators. It is absolutely disgusting. But we take it a step further by forcing more than majority rules. It is totally bonkers
|
The original filibuster where you have to actually talk about the subject in an attempt to persuade people I could live with if its saved for extraordinary situations or passionate pleas. But the current situation is simply moronic.
|
On January 12 2022 20:53 Gorsameth wrote:
The original filibuster where you have to actually talk about the subject in an attempt to persuade people I could live with if its saved for extraordinary situations or passionate pleas. But the current situation is simply moronic.
But even then, why? If we just concluded 51 vs 49 should mean 51 wins, why would we say 1 should win vs 51?
|
On January 12 2022 20:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 12 2022 20:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation. How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass? Yes? That is how basically the entire free world works. If your afraid of a tyranny of the majority. having multiple parties that together form a majority while having their own, but aligned, beliefs makes it hard to force through something extreme because your coalition partner(s) is likely to not agree with you. I agree. And I have often argued that the idea that the US operates on a strictly 2 party system is not telling the whole story, as we can plainly see with democrats. In reality, the democratic party is a coalition of a few different sub-parties. Same with republicans. We just cut to the chase and draw the line with the coalitions pre-formed. AOC and Manchin are not the same party. But they are both democrats. They are members of the same coalition. 51 votes against 50 should win every time and it shouldn't even be a thing to discuss. The filibuster is an abomination. The senate is already wildly undemocratic by giving 2 senators to california and also 2 senators to wyoming California has 68x the population of Wyoming, but they have the same number of senators. It is absolutely disgusting. But we take it a step further by forcing more than majority rules. It is totally bonkers
Each state sending 2 senators is a compromise that was necessary to get all 13 founding states to agree on forming the US. It was deliberately decided to have an upper house where popular representation was not the aim, but rather equal representation of each state. In fact at the beginning, state legislatures nominated senators without any vote from the people.
In any case you elect the president separate to the legislature so the president does not automatically command the support of Congress, which means nothing gets done unless you win by a landslide. It's an inherent feature of the system.
|
On January 12 2022 20:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 20:53 Gorsameth wrote:
The original filibuster where you have to actually talk about the subject in an attempt to persuade people I could live with if its saved for extraordinary situations or passionate pleas. But the current situation is simply moronic. But even then, why? If we just concluded 51 vs 49 should mean 51 wins, why would we say 1 should win vs 51? Because with the old rules the 1 doesn't actually win? He can delay a vote for a while as he talks and then the vote happens anyway.
|
On January 12 2022 19:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 15:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 15:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:
[quote]
I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.
Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest. What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy? I live in Australia where the majority party basically can do anything it wants, the only real check being if they do something really unpopular they will lose the next election. Is this what you are aiming for? It does has its advantages. Edit: By holding power I mean, they control Congress/the presidency and can pass laws that they support. Yes, that is what I want. It is important for political parties to be able to express their vision and to be held accountable for what they do. The American system allows for a perpetual stalemate where not only is nothing ever accomplished but politicians are never accountable. Parties need to be able to show what they can do and let voters decide if the leadership is good or bad so we can improve.
You'd be surprised. Here in Australia nothing gets done either. Every time a party proposes for radical change they get attacked and lose votes so both parties have learned to not do anything unless it's widely popular.
|
On January 12 2022 20:59 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 20:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 12 2022 20:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation. How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass? Yes? That is how basically the entire free world works. If your afraid of a tyranny of the majority. having multiple parties that together form a majority while having their own, but aligned, beliefs makes it hard to force through something extreme because your coalition partner(s) is likely to not agree with you. I agree. And I have often argued that the idea that the US operates on a strictly 2 party system is not telling the whole story, as we can plainly see with democrats. In reality, the democratic party is a coalition of a few different sub-parties. Same with republicans. We just cut to the chase and draw the line with the coalitions pre-formed. AOC and Manchin are not the same party. But they are both democrats. They are members of the same coalition. 51 votes against 50 should win every time and it shouldn't even be a thing to discuss. The filibuster is an abomination. The senate is already wildly undemocratic by giving 2 senators to california and also 2 senators to wyoming California has 68x the population of Wyoming, but they have the same number of senators. It is absolutely disgusting. But we take it a step further by forcing more than majority rules. It is totally bonkers Each state sending 2 senators is a compromise that was necessary to get all 13 founding states to agree on forming the US. It was deliberately decided to have an upper house where popular representation was not the aim, but rather equal representation of each state. In fact at the beginning, state legislatures nominated senators without any vote from the people. In any case you elect the president separate to the legislature so the president does not automatically command the support of Congress, which means nothing gets done unless you win by a landslide. It's an inherent feature of the system.
You are right and I’m aware of that. The fact that this happened over 200 years ago is an argument against it, not for it. The world and our country has changed drastically since then. We have learned and grown and there are some really obvious issues with the 200+ year old system.
I have an easy time thinking of philosophies from 200 years ago that we have since decided are really bad. Some still hold up, like “don’t kill people”, but some were not as good. We should continuously examine old stuff rather than glorify it as if it makes it divine
|
On January 12 2022 21:07 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 19:06 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 15:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 15:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit.
If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you? It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest. What constitutes “holding power” in your eyes? When a party holds power, how much of an influence should the other party have on policy? I live in Australia where the majority party basically can do anything it wants, the only real check being if they do something really unpopular they will lose the next election. Is this what you are aiming for? It does has its advantages. Edit: By holding power I mean, they control Congress/the presidency and can pass laws that they support. Yes, that is what I want. It is important for political parties to be able to express their vision and to be held accountable for what they do. The American system allows for a perpetual stalemate where not only is nothing ever accomplished but politicians are never accountable. Parties need to be able to show what they can do and let voters decide if the leadership is good or bad so we can improve. You'd be surprised. Here in Australia nothing gets done either. Every time a party proposes for radical change they get attacked and lose votes so both parties have learned to not do anything unless it's widely popular.
Wasn't your argument earlier that "the Australian majority party can basically do whatever it wants"?
Which is it? Either they are too powerful or they are impotent, they can't be both.
Perhaps the fact that radical agendas don't get passed here suggests that the US's non-functional upper house is not some essential plank of good governance.
|
United States43971 Posts
On January 12 2022 20:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm definitely a proponent of proportional representation, but I'll also grant that the UK system is far better than the american one - if you want to go with FPTP. With smaller districts, you can still get regional representation and you still get some variation. How does proportional representation work within the US system? If 48% refuses to do a single thing 52% want, where does that leave us? In your ideal system, lets assume 52% say yes, 48% say no for some given bill, should that bill pass?
The US has a lot of different political subgroups that hate each other. In a PR system there isn't 52% A and 48% B, there's A-Z with some representation.
|
|
|
United States43971 Posts
He’s right that the Republican social media figures are gutless cheerleaders that say one thing publicly and do another. Their hypocrisy should absolutely be held against them. The problem he’ll have with that strategy is that anyone who starts to recognize this is starting down the path of realizing that all of them, including him, do that. Probably wiser to have all of them get away with it than none of them.
Still, scammers like Candace Owens (freedom phones, let’s go Brandon coin, her previous left wing activist gofundmes etc.) absolutely should be raked over the coals by someone from the right. It’s ridiculous that they just let her get away with stealing their money. She clearly has no ideological attachment to the right and uses her persona as a very profitable business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
