|
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 |
United States43430 Posts
On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. Show nested quote +-The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? Show nested quote +-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote.
Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know.
|
On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. Show nested quote +-The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? Show nested quote +-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote.
It's FPTP he's criticising, not whether positions are decided by popular vote or not. Dont conflate the insanely terrible electoral college system with the insanely terrible - though distinctly different - FPTP system used elsewhere, which does result in a 2 party state.
|
On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:
Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment.
Next you are gonna cite how many city mayors you have in the US?
Most countries have states and states governments, so not sure what kind of "argument" you are trying to make here.
|
On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know.
States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem.
On July 21 2018 00:15 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:
Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment.
Next you are gonna cite how many city mayors you have in the US? Most countries have states and states governments, so not sure what kind of "argument" you are trying to make here.
The federal government in limits in scope, which gives the states governments hold far more power that any city within a state. The difference between the state of NH and the state of MA is vast, despite being next to each other. For example:
MA has a year round professional government. We collect lots of taxes and have many social services.
NH’s government meets for 2 weeks every year. They have almost no services. They collect no sales tax. There laws are so far behind the rest of the country it is called the “The land law forgot”.
|
On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem.
There's no silver bullet, unfortunately. Both systems are flawed as fuck. Parliamentary systems do keep the Trumps in line though (usually).
FPTP doesn't do much good for the UK either.
|
On July 21 2018 00:15 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:
Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment.
Next you are gonna cite how many city mayors you have in the US? Most countries have states and states governments, so not sure what kind of "argument" you are trying to make here.
How many countries operate using the concept of "dual sovereignty?" Switzerland is the only one that comes close afaik.
Edit: to be clear, I think the concept is one of the biggest obstacles in the way of American progress, but it's what we have, unfortunately.
|
On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem.
That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms.
|
On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid".
also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves.
It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms.
I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work.
|
On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:[quote] It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work.
Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched.
|
On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched.
Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters.
|
On July 21 2018 00:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:15 mahrgell wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:
Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment.
Next you are gonna cite how many city mayors you have in the US? Most countries have states and states governments, so not sure what kind of "argument" you are trying to make here. How many countries operate using the concept of "dual sovereignty?" Switzerland is the only one that comes close afaik. Edit: to be clear, I think the concept is one of the biggest obstacles in the way of American progress, but it's what we have, unfortunately.
India isless integrated than the US, hell in someways (customs controlls between states for example) India is less integrated than the EU. In terms of states blocking federal decision making I think Italy and Brazil might be able to rival the us as well but Im less sure of that.
Lots of countries have fundamentally federal ystems of government.
That said a Norwegian critizing the electoral college as an anachronism is funny to me considering that the effect (give outsize power to people on sparesly populated rural regions) is something that the Norwegian system does even more directly (by simply applying a multiplier to people's votes based on the area of the county they live in lol.)
|
Ahh yes, India is a good example too, I'll have to incorporate it into my anti-Dual Sovereignty spiel 
|
On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
[quote]
US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure.
The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters.
zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read.
|
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states when it comes to the presidency.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection that could and has changed over time not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table.
|
On July 21 2018 01:51 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:
[quote]
The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate!
Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters. zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read.
I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time.
On July 21 2018 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table.
Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election.
That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed.
|
United States43430 Posts
On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2018 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a list of things that Trump has done that has been proven that Democrats could be trotting out and talking about instead of anything to do with russia. When he talked about immigration they could have brought up his properties off shore that are routinely used by drug cartels to launder money. When he talked about how sanctuary cities were bad they could have brough up his red lining conviction.
But instead they go for Russia which isn't getting any real traction and burns slower then a sented candle. Its hysteria to continue to go on about Russia. you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid". also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves. It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to the problem
Parliamentary systems are irrelevant to the problem of constituency simple plurality. The U.K. has a parliamentary system but uses constituency simple plurality. The issue I was describing is that if you have two seats up for grabs and the vote is split 51/49 then each side would get one, unless you turn it into two separate regional races, when one side gets both.
|
On July 21 2018 02:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 20 2018 06:19 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
you're using the wrong word; that's not "hysteria" that's "poor strategy" or "stupid".
also, to what extent are the Dems heavily going after russia and not mentioning all those other things? it seems like I hear more Republicans saying that's what Dems do than Dems actually doing it themselves.
It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to the problem Parliamentary systems are irrelevant to the problem of constituency simple plurality. The U.K. has a parliamentary system but uses constituency simple plurality. The issue I was describing is that if you have two seats up for grabs and the vote is split 51/49 then each side would get one, unless you turn it into two separate regional races, when one side gets both.
But that isn't how our representation works in states. I only get to vote on 1 state rep and one senator any given election. The state wide voted doesn't matter for my House Rep, only the votes in their district. What you are asking for is to remove districts, which presents its own set of problems and removes direct accountability to a specific district. The rural parts of my state would matter even less to the federal goverment than they do now, which would be impressive.
|
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations.
|
On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations.
It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result.
|
On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result.
you stated:
I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time.
end of your statement.
I'll just chalk this up as you misspoke earlier then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
