Only a referendum can pave a way for real elections in America

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our votes don't mean anything anymore. Maybe they never did but gerrymandering, vote theft, vote buying has put an end to honest elections in the US.

That is toothpaste that we will probably never get shoved back in the tube.

One of the hardest things is that those in power really don't want the system to change, they like the system, but it works for them.

In the UK the 3rd party the Lib Dems got into junior govt and made an Alternative Voting referendum part of the agreement, but both main parties put a lot of pressure on the vote to fail, and it did.

The biggest problem was, no one really wanted AV, the Lib Dems wanted PR, but the Tories wouldn't allow that vote to take place.

 

[pvsi]

Our votes don't mean anything anymore. Maybe they never did but gerrymandering, vote theft, vote buying has put an end to honest elections in the US.

That is toothpaste that we will probably never get shoved back in the tube.

One of the hardest things is that those in power really don't want the system to change, they like the system, but it works for them.

In the UK the 3rd party the Lib Dems got into junior govt and made an Alternative Voting referendum part of the agreement, but both main parties put a lot of pressure on the vote to fail, and it did.

The biggest problem was, no one really wanted AV, the Lib Dems wanted PR, but the Tories wouldn't allow that vote to take place.

You are right. And I think society is not to blame either, what is to blame are the intelligent people outside politics who do nothing about it

 

[dcraelin]

I dont see what you mean....

hard to work that system for one-man office like presidency

Actually it's pretty simple.

There are various different ways this sort of thing can happen.

1) like the French, you have a run off if no one gets 50%
2) You do something like AV (Alternative voting). You basically put numbers down. So like 1 for your first choice, you can choose to put a 2 for your second choice and 3 for your third choice. So they count the votes up, the eliminate those with the least amount of votes, then those who voted this losing candidate get their votes counted with their 2nd choice.
3) There's also other options, such as requiring candidates to get so much support before they can enter the race.

It can easily work.

OK your talking about ranked voting, instant runoff voting, or a variant. I like that idea for a post like the presidency too. But what I originally referred to was proportional representation for one house in Congress.....this, as I understand one version of it at least, has people vote for party lists and representatives are chosen from the partys in proportion to the vote. Not a winner take all system. I think these are usually done with the proportionality based on a national district vote but it could work on a state or regional level too. (Woudnt make any difference in states with only 1 representative tho in that case)

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are right. And I think society is not to blame either, what is to blame are the intelligent people outside politics who do nothing about it

Well, intelligent people often look for their own interests. Many people don't seem to care, some people care but know they can't do anything about it. But you look on this board and see how many people are interested. Hardly anyone. It's a non-issue, why? because the people in charge, the people who spend loads of money controlling congress etc, they don't make this an issue, and no one is speaking up much. What's the point of speaking up if no one will listen, if those who do speak about politics spend their whole time insulting each other because what seems important is to make sure you get one over on the other team.

The thing is when people make a stand in the US, it's usually over something someone said that they didn't like. People just don't seem to have the drive to stand up for anything worth standing up for, they seem to be led like sheep to the slaughter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OK your talking about ranked voting, instant runoff voting, or a variant. I like that idea for a post like the presidency too. But what I originally referred to was proportional representation for one house in Congress.....this, as I understand one version of it at least, has people vote for party lists and representatives are chosen from the partys in proportion to the vote. Not a winner take all system. I think these are usually done with the proportionality based on a national district vote but it could work on a state or regional level too. (Woudnt make any difference in states with only 1 representative tho in that case)

No particularly no.
What I'm talking about is the ability of people to go to the polls and know that their vote actually counts. At present some people's vote counts, very few, especially in national politics.

Yes, there are lots of ways to do PR in the House. It would work, I like the German system which is half PR and half FPTP, so that people still have a congressman who is voted in by the people of the area and acts on their behalf, but over all the House would be based on the wishes of all the people.

 

[pvsi]

You are right. And I think society is not to blame either, what is to blame are the intelligent people outside politics who do nothing about it

Well, intelligent people often look for their own interests. Many people don't seem to care, some people care but know they can't do anything about it. But you look on this board and see how many people are interested. Hardly anyone. It's a non-issue, why? because the people in charge, the people who spend loads of money controlling congress etc, they don't make this an issue, and no one is speaking up much. What's the point of speaking up if no one will listen, if those who do speak about politics spend their whole time insulting each other because what seems important is to make sure you get one over on the other team.

The thing is when people make a stand in the US, it's usually over something someone said that they didn't like. People just don't seem to have the drive to stand up for anything worth standing up for, they seem to be led like sheep to the slaughter.

Everything you stated is accurate. perhaps they can only listen when they go hungry. like my dogs. if they're full, they just like to lay down and growl at each other.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What many seem to be forgetting is that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – and thankfully so.

Had the United States been a democracy, it would have perished long ago, and our civil liberties along with it.

 

[pvsi]

What many seem to be forgetting is that the United States is a Constitutional Republic,

Where politicians wipe their asses with constitution every day.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Everything you stated is accurate. perhaps they can only listen when they go hungry. like my dogs. if they're full, they just like to lay down and growl at each other.

Haha, yeah, though I have a feeling this is nature's way of controlling things.

All empires have come to an end. The reasons are often that people get so used to the good life being on top, that those who aren't on the top then fight to be there, while those on the top lose that fight.

People often point to Vietnam as the point where they could see that the US was on the way down. China is rising up, Russia is coming back again, Europe is being more united, and the US can even get rid of the $1 bill.

 

[dcraelin]

OK your talking about ranked voting, instant runoff voting, or a variant. I like that idea for a post like the presidency too. But what I originally referred to was proportional representation for one house in Congress.....this, as I understand one version of it at least, has people vote for party lists and representatives are chosen from the partys in proportion to the vote. Not a winner take all system. I think these are usually done with the proportionality based on a national district vote but it could work on a state or regional level too. (Woudnt make any difference in states with only 1 representative tho in that case)

No particularly no.
What I'm talking about is the ability of people to go to the polls and know that their vote actually counts. At present some people's vote counts, very few, especially in national politics.

Yes, there are lots of ways to do PR in the House. It would work, I like the German system which is half PR and half FPTP, so that people still have a congressman who is voted in by the people of the area and acts on their behalf, but over all the House would be based on the wishes of all the people.

dont understand your "no particularly no" on top part, but think I agree on rest

Well in my suggestion the Senate would still be elected by district (state)...and possibly proportional representation would be by state districts in the house. Even if based on a nationwide proportionality though, parties would still have to cater to local wants at least to a certain extent or risk splinter parties.

 

[frigidweirdo]

dont understand your "no particularly no" on top part, but think I agree on rest

Well in my suggestion the Senate would still be elected by district (state)...and possibly proportional representation would be by state districts in the house. Even if based on a nationwide proportionality though, parties would still have to cater to local wants at least to a certain extent or risk splinter parties.

Should have been, "not particularly, no" in reference to you saying what you thought I was talking about.

Splinter parties, however, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might even make people see the difference between state and local issues a bit more.
I think people need to know their vote matters. If a voting system still ends up with the main two parties, then it doesn't work. It would have to be a system that does lead to more parties so people feel their vote matters.

 

[dcraelin]

dont understand your "no particularly no" on top part, but think I agree on rest

Well in my suggestion the Senate would still be elected by district (state)...and possibly proportional representation would be by state districts in the house. Even if based on a nationwide proportionality though, parties would still have to cater to local wants at least to a certain extent or risk splinter parties.

Should have been, "not particularly, no" in reference to you saying what you thought I was talking about.

Splinter parties, however, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might even make people see the difference between state and local issues a bit more.
I think people need to know their vote matters. If a voting system still ends up with the main two parties, then it doesn't work. It would have to be a system that does lead to more parties so people feel their vote matters.

I dont see more parties as a bad thing either.

 

[pvsi]

dont understand your "no particularly no" on top part, but think I agree on rest

Well in my suggestion the Senate would still be elected by district (state)...and possibly proportional representation would be by state districts in the house. Even if based on a nationwide proportionality though, parties would still have to cater to local wants at least to a certain extent or risk splinter parties.

Should have been, "not particularly, no" in reference to you saying what you thought I was talking about.

Splinter parties, however, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might even make people see the difference between state and local issues a bit more.
I think people need to know their vote matters. If a voting system still ends up with the main two parties, then it doesn't work. It would have to be a system that does lead to more parties so people feel their vote matters.

I dont see more parties as a bad thing either.

The whole idea of partying is to distract from leadership, to disguise dictatorship controlling the puppet circus, to create excuses not to do what is promised to the people:

 

[frigidweirdo]

The whole idea of partying is to distract from leadership, to disguise dictatorship controlling the puppet circus, to create excuses not to do what is promised to the people:

"partying", getting wasted and then being sick????

A political party will look out for its own interests. You have 2 parties they will attack each other. However they might also make sure that no one else gets a look in, and keep away from those things which neither wants to deal with.

When you have more than 2, especially like 4 or 5 parties who have a significant voice, then more voices are heard, those in charge find it harder, they find they are less secure.

When people are less secure, those with money find it harder to get what they want. Sometimes views can become important when they're not backed by money. In the US it's almost impossible for views or topics to be mainstream if someone isn't backing them with tons of money.

In the UK you have UKIP, yeah, they're populist and don't have a decent policy at all, however they stick to one point, they moan about it, and it puts massive pressure on the main two parties.

The internet and more open media in the UK has led to the Lib Dems being in coalition govt, the first time that someone outside of the main two parties has held some power for a very long time, perhaps nearly 100 years.
The Green Party has a seat in Westminster as well, their voice is small, but it has eroded the mainstream political party support.

Around the 1950s the main two were getting close to the 50% mark most of the time. Now they're closer to 30%.
Cameron is the 7th worst leader of the party at a General Election since the 1850s and yet became PM.

Then tell me what you see here

It's just a massive block of red and blue.


UK parliament has 36.1% and 29% of the vote for the two main parties. That's 65.1% of the vote for the two.

The same year in the US it was 51.7% and 44.9%, making 96.6%.

There's a MASSIVE difference.

The more parties, the more likely debate is going to happen on the subjects that people want to hear and not what the political parties want to hear.

 

[pvsi]

The more parties, the more likely debate is going to happen on the subjects that people want to hear and not what the political parties want to hear.

As long as the parties are dependent on money, they will serve the same money masters, they will be on the leash, they will bark like puppies against the establishment, but they will know when to stop and when to sit, when to lay down, when to be quiet and when to play dead - there is absolutely nothing independent about any parties that need donations and the publicity of the media to be known. Why do you think some of the topics they debate about are gay rights, climate changes, flag pins, they might as well debate about which way a roll of toilet paper must be put in public restrooms, over or under - it is a CIRCUS, a fraud, not real, imaginary. Without this circus the people would quickly wake up and seek answers and seek democracy/power to make decisions - NO ONE likes to live oppressed, but now they have democrats and republicans to blame for the problems and they feel good about it and proud to be smart.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As long as the parties are dependent on money, they will serve the same money masters, they will be on the leash, they will bark like puppies against the establishment, but they will know when to stop and when to sit, when to lay down, when to be quiet and when to play dead - there is absolutely nothing independent about any parties that need donations and the publicity of the media to be known. Why do you think some of the topics they debate about are gay rights, climate changes, flag pins, they might as well debate about which way a roll of toilet paper must be put in public restrooms, over or under - it is a CIRCUS, a fraud, not real, imaginary. Without this circus the people would quickly wake up and seek answers and seek democracy/power to make decisions - NO ONE likes to live oppressed, but now they have democrats and republicans to blame for the problems and they feel good about it and proud to be smart.

Of course they will. Money corrupts.

However, the more parties you have, the more chance one of them is going to dig around and make sure they find out what's going on, or present a different view.
In the US all that happens is one thing happens, say Benghazi, or Hurricane Katrina, and you get the other side slamming away on that point in one way. Either it sticks or it doesn't, but it's always the same.

Now, where the German system is great, is that it leads to a coalition every single time. Coalitions can only work with consensus. The party in charge can't get away with everything it wants, it has to rein itself in, but on the other hand, negotiations take place that set out the next parliament and what can and what can't happen.

People know what they're getting with each party, and how they can change the system, and improve it.

Yep, without the circus, you're absolutely right, yet the clowns need the circus and aren't going to make it disappear if they can help it.

No one likes to live oppressed, but when they spend so much money telling you that you're not, then you believe. No one wants to think they're stupid.

 

[dcraelin]

Should have been, "not particularly, no" in reference to you saying what you thought I was talking about.

Splinter parties, however, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might even make people see the difference between state and local issues a bit more.
I think people need to know their vote matters. If a voting system still ends up with the main two parties, then it doesn't work. It would have to be a system that does lead to more parties so people feel their vote matters.

I dont see more parties as a bad thing either.

The whole idea of partying is to distract from leadership, to disguise dictatorship controlling the puppet circus, to create excuses not to do what is promised to the people:

well I disagree a little bit. The parties in a two-party system tend to act like you say. They can keep people in line over fear that the "other side" might win. They mainly compete over graft. But in a multi-party system parties are more aligned with their voters on ideology. Parties mean something there, and if a party shafts its voters (as happens in US all the time) people can split off and find someone who means what they say.

 

[pvsi]

As long as the parties are dependent on money, they will serve the same money masters, they will be on the leash, they will bark like puppies against the establishment, but they will know when to stop and when to sit, when to lay down, when to be quiet and when to play dead - there is absolutely nothing independent about any parties that need donations and the publicity of the media to be known. Why do you think some of the topics they debate about are gay rights, climate changes, flag pins, they might as well debate about which way a roll of toilet paper must be put in public restrooms, over or under - it is a CIRCUS, a fraud, not real, imaginary. Without this circus the people would quickly wake up and seek answers and seek democracy/power to make decisions - NO ONE likes to live oppressed, but now they have democrats and republicans to blame for the problems and they feel good about it and proud to be smart.

Of course they will. Money corrupts.

However, the more parties you have, the more chance one of them is going to dig around and make sure they find out what's going on, or present a different view.
In the US all that happens is one thing happens, say Benghazi, or Hurricane Katrina, and you get the other side slamming away on that point in one way. Either it sticks or it doesn't, but it's always the same.

Now, where the German system is great, is that it leads to a coalition every single time. Coalitions can only work with consensus. The party in charge can't get away with everything it wants, it has to rein itself in, but on the other hand, negotiations take place that set out the next parliament and what can and what can't happen.

People know what they're getting with each party, and how they can change the system, and improve it.

Yep, without the circus, you're absolutely right, yet the clowns need the circus and aren't going to make it disappear if they can help it.

No one likes to live oppressed, but when they spend so much money telling you that you're not, then you believe. No one wants to think they're stupid.

Since you mentioned you are from Germany I shall remind you that in the 1920's there were LOT'S of political parties in Germany that did nothing but drag the country down and eventually paving the way for ONE leader, and while I can not discuss what happened AFTER that, I CAN say that a bunch of political parties did NOT solve ANYTHING for the German people, and in America today there is a similar situation, only America is a WELFARE state instead of a SLAVE state which Germany was before Hitler.

 

[pvsi]

I dont see more parties as a bad thing either.

The whole idea of partying is to distract from leadership, to disguise dictatorship controlling the puppet circus, to create excuses not to do what is promised to the people:

well I disagree a little bit. The parties in a two-party system tend to act like you say. They can keep people in line over fear that the "other side" might win. They mainly compete over graft. But in a multi-party system parties are more aligned with their voters on ideology. Parties mean something there, and if a party shafts its voters (as happens in US all the time) people can split off and find someone who means what they say.

Perhaps I can not argue your point because I have not lived under a multi party leadership as some Euro nations, I lived in a single party (USSR) and a two party (USA) system, but I believe I CAN make a couple of important points and observations:
1. In USA and USSR all 3 combined parties were controlled by the same people behind the scenes.
2. The "splits" and "differences" that the two parties in America where I live have, are on meaningless issues such as what to name the health scam, (Obama care or Romney care) how to deal with the gay issue (to condemn or not to condemn) what form of government benefits are ok and not ok, and other NONSENSE issues. But as far as standing up to the REAL slave masters/welfare kings/war mongers/international bankers - none of them are allowed to do so and when someone like Ron Paul here DOES, and is allowed to speak on the MSM, he is allowed to do so AS A DISTRACTOR because he begins talking about things like going back to the gold standard to turn the whole thing into a joke and further confuse people.

These are my observations, but I can not really speak for European nations especially today, because I am not familiar with those systems, I can only say that Lithuania (my old country) is as corrupt today as any other axis of democracy nation.