- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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 itOur 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.
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.
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
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)
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.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.
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.
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.
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: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:
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.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.
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: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.
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.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.
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:I dont see more parties as a bad thing either.
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.