|
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 |
We got two votes. One for the one guy in your district, and a second vote for a party for the popular vote. That means people vote for the list the party sets up. No one gets into Bundestag without people voting for them (meaning voting for the list they are on).
And people not getting into Bundestag after having won their constituency is a thing that is somewhat new, there were some changes in the last government to limit the size of the Bundestag. It didn't happen before 2023, but we decided that paying for fewer people in Bundestag and reducing the size to a more workable one is more important than absolutely everyone who wins a constituency getting in.
Overall, having the power of a party directly linked to the percentage of the popular vote they gained is much more sensible than having it based on how good they are at cheating at some weird districting system.
|
On April 30 2026 18:10 Simberto wrote:
We got two votes. One for the one guy in your district, and a second vote for a party for the popular vote. That means people vote for the list the party sets up. No one gets into Bundestag without people voting for them (meaning voting for the list they are on).
And people not getting into Bundestag after having won their constituency is a thing that is somewhat new, there were some changes in the last government to limit the size of the Bundestag. It didn't happen before 2023, but we decided that paying for fewer people in Bundestag and reducing the size to a more workable one is more important than absolutely everyone who wins a constituency getting in.
Overall, having the power of a party directly linked to the percentage of the popular vote they gained is much more sensible than having it based on how good they are at cheating at some weird districting system.
Theoretically. In practice most people vote for a party and to my understanding order of the candidates on a party list is at discretion of a party. This allow to place 2-3 popular names on the top and fill the rest as you please. Like for example placing candidate from challenged constituency higher.
Dont take me wrong I also happened to think that entire gerrymandering thing is stupid. However stating that your system is better (or more sensible) when both are flawed is giving your personal preference rather than stating a fact.
|
Yeah mixing votes from Oregon with votes from Florida would not be a particularly good way to help people in Florida get representatives to represent them better. The Florida Republican Party and Arkansas Republican Party and Oregon Republican Party all have different interests, funding, goals, etc. The idea of voting for parties directly presupposes the existence and roles of parties which the US system doesn't. For good reason. Anyone can just run and win at any time.
|
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a majority of the seats through shady bullshit.
|
On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit.
That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district.
|
On April 30 2026 19:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit. That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district.
These conversations sure are somthing:
A; "The system is idiotic for a miriad of reasons, here are some!"
B: "It's a perfectly fine system because the other side can exploit the unecessary and undemocratic flaws in it too!"
And earlyer:
A: "The system is idiotic, here is a better one."
B: "Thats also not perfect because of thing that barely ever happens! (and can happen because it was deemed the lesser evil)"
But go on...
|
On April 30 2026 20:34 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 19:23 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit. That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district. These conversations sure are somthing: A; "The system is idiotic for a miriad of reasons, here are some!" B: "It's a perfectly fine system because the other side can exploit the unecessary and undemocratic flaws in it too!" And earlyer: A: "The system is idiotic, here is a better one." B: "Thats also not perfect because of thing that barely ever happens! (and can happen because it was deemed the lesser evil)" But go on...
If you summed the popular vote totals from Bundestag constituency votes it wouldn't match the final apportionment exactly either. So what?
Maybe you "expected" it to match exactly? The system isn't wrong. That expectation was wrong.
This is constantly the chess fallacy. It is a checkers player getting checkmated while having more pieces and going "How is that fair? I have more pieces." Yes, that's possible. The reason is chess prioritizes checkmate. The people who designed the US system knew they were prioritizing direct representation in the House. Because they had none in Britain. They even named it the House of Representatives. Not the House of Proportional Party Tallies Where A Bunch Of People Voting Red In Texas Means One Less Democrat From Virginia To Make Room For Those Texas Republicans.
US system mogs Germany for independents also.
Yes no matter what margin a district votes by, that district can't get more representatives than the one that already won. Your problem is being stuck on level 1 thinking the system is fundamentally broken when it was just built on a different value judgment than you expected.
|
Popular vote is the only logical way to elect a leader of all the people who vote within a country.
If the president is the president of all states, the electors system and especially the primary system is completely archaic and stupid and anyone who defends it is clearly motivated by political bias, there is no other explanation for why someone would advocate for it, so it makes sense that the only people doing so are the most brainwashed champions of motivated reasoning around.
In other news, the president of the law and order party is using the politicized DOJ to, once again, go after James Comey, after the fake charges were thrown out the first time, they found something even more stupid, a post on his social media consisting of seashells spelling out "86 47".
It's all pretty insane, from all the people that Trump has on his shitlist, he is making his DOJ humiliate itself over this guy who arguably got him the first presidency, without which he'd 100 % be in jail. But, that doesn't take precedent in this dementia patient mind over him being "disloyal" in not dropping the Russia investigation.
|
On April 30 2026 20:34 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 19:23 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit. That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district. These conversations sure are somthing: A; "The system is idiotic for a miriad of reasons, here are some!" B: "It's a perfectly fine system because the other side can exploit the unecessary and undemocratic flaws in it too!" And earlyer: A: "The system is idiotic, here is a better one." B: "Thats also not perfect because of thing that barely ever happens! (and can happen because it was deemed the lesser evil)" But go on...
Why would conservatives ever admit that a system that entrenches conservative minority rule is bad? Even they're smart enough not to cook the goose that lays their golden eggs.
|
On April 30 2026 20:34 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 19:23 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit. That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district. These conversations sure are somthing: A; "The system is idiotic for a miriad of reasons, here are some!" B: "It's a perfectly fine system because the other side can exploit the unecessary and undemocratic flaws in it too!" And earlyer: A: "The system is idiotic, here is a better one."B: "Thats also not perfect because of thing that barely ever happens! (and can happen because it was deemed the lesser evil)" But go on...
To declare system better it needs to be factually better, rather than preferred by someone.
As for "barely ever happens" it kinda starts feeling like "Pater Noster" of the left...
Edit: added "for"
|
It's true that there's an element of subjectivity to the idea of electoral fairness. There's a whole host of fancy terms that electoral scientists have come up with to compare different voting methods, like Monotonicity, Majority loser, Clone independence, Reversal symmetry, Resolvability, and so on.
The problem is the method most of the USA uses, gerrymandered districts/electoral college with simple plurality single-choice ballots, is the worst by basically all of the criteria. The U.S. Constitution was written and ratified in a time when electoral science was very primitive. After World War II, we helped Germany, Japan, and Italy write new constitutions that avoided the pitfalls we made in our own, but we can't fix those same design flaws because it would mean you can't own the libz anymore.
|
On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November. The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old. + Show Spoiler +
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there.
In what probably passes for good news nowadays, Democrat leadership/Schumer's pick couldn't even make it to the primary.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills is suspending her Democratic primary campaign for US Senate
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/30/politics/janet-mills-maine-senate
She said it was the money but it was probably her trying to save face from getting blown out
A new poll released April 7 shows Graham Platner with a commanding lead over Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, 61% to 28%, a 33-point margin that has widened since last fall.
https://mainebeacon.com/platner-opens-33-point-lead-over-mills-leads-collins-in-new-maine-u-s-senate-poll/
|
On April 30 2026 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:It's true that there's an element of subjectivity to the idea of electoral fairness. There's a whole host of fancy terms that electoral scientists have come up with to compare different voting methods, like Monotonicity, Majority loser, Clone independence, Reversal symmetry, Resolvability, and so on. The problem is the method most of the USA uses, gerrymandered districts/electoral college with simple plurality single-choice ballots, is the worst by basically all of the criteria. The U.S. Constitution was written and ratified in a time when electoral science was very primitive. After World War II, we helped Germany, Japan, and Italy write new constitutions that avoided the pitfalls we made in our own, but we can't fix those same design flaws because it would mean you can't own the libz anymore.
Italy and Germany wrote their own constitutions and neither decided to have the people even elect their main leader at all.
|
Hard to say that's not a positive compared to the USA where we can't even remove a child molester president unless at least about a third of his party in the Senate agrees.
|
We should probably amicably divorce, where one country can go strictly proportional and elect everyone based on that principle, and the other can preserve a historical not-strictly-proportional method. The constitutional means to change it has failed every time for around 250 years.
|
I would love if the USA broke up like the USSR did. Unfortunately the Epstein class will never allow that to happen because their ability to siphon wealth from blue states is dependent upon the votes enabling them to do so from the parasite red states.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On April 30 2026 22:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 20:34 Velr wrote:On April 30 2026 19:23 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 19:03 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, i know that republicans hate the idea of proportional representation, because it means that their minority can't win a minority of the seats through shady bullshit. That's uncommon. But there is nothing that stops Democrats from winning more House seats with fewer votes either. Representation is proportional because the same number of people are in each district. These conversations sure are somthing: A; "The system is idiotic for a miriad of reasons, here are some!" B: "It's a perfectly fine system because the other side can exploit the unecessary and undemocratic flaws in it too!" And earlyer: A: "The system is idiotic, here is a better one."B: "Thats also not perfect because of thing that barely ever happens! (and can happen because it was deemed the lesser evil)" But go on... To declare system better it needs to be factually better, rather than preferred by someone. As for " barely ever happens" it kinda starts feeling like " Pater Noster" of the left... Edit: added "for"
You can’t define any electoral system as ‘factually’ better no. Can’t even ‘factually’ prove democracy in the abstract. But one can provide parameters of what x system is supposed to do, and how well it does it. Which one can actually address somewhat objectively and compare to other systems and come up with various empirical metrics.
And ‘barely ever happens’ can simply just be a broadly correct observation.
|
On April 30 2026 23:28 LightSpectra wrote:
I would love if the USA broke up like the USSR did. Unfortunately the Epstein class will never allow that to happen because their ability to siphon wealth from blue states is dependent upon the votes enabling them to do so from the parasite red states.
That seems to be one of the only ways out of this mess. The other path i can see is the US eventually falling completely to fascism. I just don't see a way for the deplorables who seem to be winning elections in the US ever actually being okay with being a modern state.
|
On April 30 2026 23:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:It's true that there's an element of subjectivity to the idea of electoral fairness. There's a whole host of fancy terms that electoral scientists have come up with to compare different voting methods, like Monotonicity, Majority loser, Clone independence, Reversal symmetry, Resolvability, and so on. The problem is the method most of the USA uses, gerrymandered districts/electoral college with simple plurality single-choice ballots, is the worst by basically all of the criteria. The U.S. Constitution was written and ratified in a time when electoral science was very primitive. After World War II, we helped Germany, Japan, and Italy write new constitutions that avoided the pitfalls we made in our own, but we can't fix those same design flaws because it would mean you can't own the libz anymore. Italy and Germany wrote their own constitutions and neither decided to have the people even elect their main leader at all.
I like how oBlade is pretending like he's an electoral expert for Italian and German systems.
When German and Italian political parties and coalitions are campaigning, they clearly state who the PM / Chancellor will be and the voters take that in to consideration when they vote. Both Mertz and Meloni were the PM candidates when they won their last elections.
I'd know since my country's system and our constitution has largely been copied from German one, plus these 2 elections as some of our biggest economic allies are pretty important to us.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On April 30 2026 23:27 dyhb wrote:
We should probably amicably divorce, where one country can go strictly proportional and elect everyone based on that principle, and the other can preserve a historical not-strictly-proportional method. The constitutional means to change it has failed every time for around 250 years.
We could just hypothetically make the US President subject to a popular vote subject to how the role has clearly expanded over the years
Or alternatively the cheques checks and balances could function as envisaged, and change becomes less appealing.
America already has a bicameral legislature, one of which weights states over people, where the other is weighed the other way. And a Supreme Court
If a President can basically bypass these checks depending on the lay of the land, and in particular domains as a national figure and head of state, it feels to me they should be elected in the same manner.
On the flipside if other shit actually functioned properly, I don’t think the system is a bad one on paper. Indeed I actively like the American system in many ways. It probably works very well in other locales
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
