Alternative Voting System

[FA_Q2]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

No, the German system has both, PR and FPTP, and you vote for the party and the candidate, it works well. The reality is no matter you have party lists or not, politicians will get elected somehow anyway. In many places people go to the easiest seats.

AV was rejected in the UK, it's better than FPTP, but still would lead to a two party system in the US.

That is your assumption.

Giving the third party an avenue to get votes will make the other parties pay attention or they will lose seats. Giving the party the ability to chose those that take office is an idea that REALLY does not sit well with me - the parties have no place doing so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

No, the German system has both, PR and FPTP, and you vote for the party and the candidate, it works well. The reality is no matter you have party lists or not, politicians will get elected somehow anyway. In many places people go to the easiest seats.

AV was rejected in the UK, it's better than FPTP, but still would lead to a two party system in the US.

That is your assumption.

Giving the third party an avenue to get votes will make the other parties pay attention or they will lose seats. Giving the party the ability to chose those that take office is an idea that REALLY does not sit well with me - the parties have no place doing so.

Well it's my assumption based on having seen and studied various ways of voting.

The British system works on FPTP just like the US system, the only difference is there is no presidential election, it's all based on who you vote for as your constituency member, and even with a fairly similar system there are difference in how this system plays out. However does it mean that the larger parties get less votes? Not necessarily. In Australia where it actually happens, smaller parties get into deals with the bigger parties, and then tell their voters to go vote 2nd or 3rd for a bigger party in exchange for favors. However in the US there aren't other voters in the first place, there are Rep and Dem voters, so it wouldn't happen.

People would still vote Rep or Dem first choice.

The 1990 Irish presidential election had AV, and the difference was there. However it meant that the first party in FPTP became the 2nd party in AV. But the two main parties were still the two main parties. And again, in the US, what would change? Not much. How many people vote other parties? This might grow slightly, but not enough to cause problems.

PR would smash the two main parties to hell, because people would soon realise their vote actually means something.

 

[FA_Q2]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

No, the German system has both, PR and FPTP, and you vote for the party and the candidate, it works well. The reality is no matter you have party lists or not, politicians will get elected somehow anyway. In many places people go to the easiest seats.

AV was rejected in the UK, it's better than FPTP, but still would lead to a two party system in the US.

That is your assumption.

Giving the third party an avenue to get votes will make the other parties pay attention or they will lose seats. Giving the party the ability to chose those that take office is an idea that REALLY does not sit well with me - the parties have no place doing so.

Well it's my assumption based on having seen and studied various ways of voting.

The British system works on FPTP just like the US system, the only difference is there is no presidential election, it's all based on who you vote for as your constituency member, and even with a fairly similar system there are difference in how this system plays out. However does it mean that the larger parties get less votes? Not necessarily. In Australia where it actually happens, smaller parties get into deals with the bigger parties, and then tell their voters to go vote 2nd or 3rd for a bigger party in exchange for favors. However in the US there aren't other voters in the first place, there are Rep and Dem voters, so it wouldn't happen.

People would still vote Rep or Dem first choice.

The 1990 Irish presidential election had AV, and the difference was there. However it meant that the first party in FPTP became the 2nd party in AV. But the two main parties were still the two main parties. And again, in the US, what would change? Not much. How many people vote other parties? This might grow slightly, but not enough to cause problems.

PR would smash the two main parties to hell, because people would soon realise their vote actually means something.

Again, people voting rep or dem as first choice is a huge assumption. Most here don't feel either party represents them but vote because they fear the other guy more. When you have the ability to vote a third party WITHOUT increasing the chance that your least favorite candidate wins you would see a LOT more people branching away from the main parties.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Like the Heinlein method: only get to vote if a veteran.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

No, the German system has both, PR and FPTP, and you vote for the party and the candidate, it works well. The reality is no matter you have party lists or not, politicians will get elected somehow anyway. In many places people go to the easiest seats.

AV was rejected in the UK, it's better than FPTP, but still would lead to a two party system in the US.

That is your assumption.

Giving the third party an avenue to get votes will make the other parties pay attention or they will lose seats. Giving the party the ability to chose those that take office is an idea that REALLY does not sit well with me - the parties have no place doing so.

Well it's my assumption based on having seen and studied various ways of voting.

The British system works on FPTP just like the US system, the only difference is there is no presidential election, it's all based on who you vote for as your constituency member, and even with a fairly similar system there are difference in how this system plays out. However does it mean that the larger parties get less votes? Not necessarily. In Australia where it actually happens, smaller parties get into deals with the bigger parties, and then tell their voters to go vote 2nd or 3rd for a bigger party in exchange for favors. However in the US there aren't other voters in the first place, there are Rep and Dem voters, so it wouldn't happen.

People would still vote Rep or Dem first choice.

The 1990 Irish presidential election had AV, and the difference was there. However it meant that the first party in FPTP became the 2nd party in AV. But the two main parties were still the two main parties. And again, in the US, what would change? Not much. How many people vote other parties? This might grow slightly, but not enough to cause problems.

PR would smash the two main parties to hell, because people would soon realise their vote actually means something.

Again, people voting rep or dem as first choice is a huge assumption. Most here don't feel either party represents them but vote because they fear the other guy more. When you have the ability to vote a third party WITHOUT increasing the chance that your least favorite candidate wins you would see a LOT more people branching away from the main parties.

Maybe it is a huge assumption, but assuming they'd get out of the habit is also another massive assumption. It's all we have.

If people vote out of fear of the other guy, how will this change in AV? They'll merely vote rep or dem first and then the other guys second.

Australia: The Alternative Vote System —

"Commentators on Australian politics historically tended to regard the alternative vote as a variation of FPTP, in most cases giving results nearly identical to that system in terms of election outcomes and the structure of party systems. Douglas Rae, for example, in his seminal work on the consequences of electoral laws, stated baldly that "the Australian system behaves in all its particulars as if it were a single-member district plurality formula". A number of other commentators have argued that preferential voting makes little difference to Australian electoral results and have not been central in determining how governments are constituted."

In Australia it doesn't make much of a difference, so why would it in the USA?

 

[cnm]

How did I misuse the term republic?

Implying it had anything to do with this:

the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.

And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

 

[cnm]

Giving the party the ability to chose those that take office is an idea that REALLY does not sit well with me - the parties have no place doing so.

As said, that already exists with safe seats.

 

[cnm]

PR would smash the two main parties to hell, because people would soon realise their vote actually means something.

Not our experience yet, the two main parties still exist, usually it means they must govern in a coalition.

 

[frigidweirdo]

PR would smash the two main parties to hell, because people would soon realise their vote actually means something.

Not our experience yet, the two main parties still exist, usually it means they must govern in a coalition.

Actually not. What usually happens is more parties form, PR is usually a four or five party system, and the two main parties will have little brother parties, so the Republicans might have the Libertarians and the Tea Party, while the Democrats might have the Greens, with which they could form a coalition. What then needs to happen is negotiation to make things work. Otherwise people pull out of coalitions and then there is not power to rule.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Those who vote, decide nothing.

"Those who count the votes, decide everything."

-Josef Stalin

Stalin? I could have sworn it was Katherine Harris who said that.

(lol don't crash wiki now)

 

[Iceweasel]

How did I misuse the term republic?

Implying it had anything to do with this:

the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.

And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute.

 

[CowboyTed]

How did I misuse the term republic?

Implying it had anything to do with this:

the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.

And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute.

Can I ask you a question?

Why are you harping back to the founding fathers. Nice guys as they may be, they were not Gods. They stated that more than once. The constitution under there eyes was meant to be a living document which changed with the times. When did the US last amend its constitution?

We live in modern times with modern problems and need modern solutions. When you look to the founding fathers they would have told you that a microwave is demons at work.

The people deserve to be able to determine where the country is heading today and the children can decide for themselves when their time comes. The constitution is not the Bible but just a set of rules live by today and like slavery and women voting, times change and the constitution needs to change with it.

 

[Iceweasel]

How did I misuse the term republic?

Implying it had anything to do with this:

the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.

And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute.

Can I ask you a question?

Why are you harping back to the founding fathers. Nice guys as they may be, they were not Gods. They stated that more than once. The constitution under there eyes was meant to be a living document which changed with the times. When did the US last amend its constitution?

We live in modern times with modern problems and need modern solutions. When you look to the founding fathers they would have told you that a microwave is demons at work.

The people deserve to be able to determine where the country is heading today and the children can decide for themselves when their time comes. The constitution is not the Bible but just a set of rules live by today and like slavery and women voting, times change and the constitution needs to change with it.

I didn't harp back to the founders. I responded to someone and pointed out we are a republic. The founders set up the framework and didn't try to micro-manage everything under the sun but included a mechanism to modify or add to it.

Times do change but that doesn't mean we let the most aggressive progressives dictate the rules we must live under. You don't like the Constitution? Tough.

 

[dcraelin]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

 

[Iceweasel]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

How? You make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Iceweasel]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

If the Constitution protects the lamb, it's only because the 2 lions decided to have a Constitution that protected the lamb.

 

[Iceweasel]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

That's an IQ problem on your side.

How? You make no sense whatsoever.