Proportional Representation in US elections?

[frigidweirdo]

So, the Republican Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.
The Democratic Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.

$6.5 billion was spent at the last federal elections, mostly on telling people what to thing and mostly aimed at stopping other parties standing any chance what so ever.

Now, with PR, people would feel like they could vote other parties because it would not be FPTP and basically a choice of two. If only one person voted in Washington State for a party, it would actually count as a vote, whereas now it only counts for their little area.

The Presidency is the obvious place where PR would have a small impact, it would still be a rep-dem toss up. The House would be where it could have the greatest impact with smaller parties able to at least get close to having a seat.

I like the German system. Half PR half FPTP.

So you vote both. For a constituency candidate and for a party. The make up of parliament has to match PR more or less. All the constituency winners are automatically put on the top of the list, then the rest of the list is added if there are more seats for that party.

It leads to far more parties taking part, FPTP often leads to 2 or 3 parties, PR to 4 or 5 at least.

 

[Pogo]

Yanno, this might be an interesting thread if it wasn't writ in code. I doubt anyone has a clue what you're talking about.

I had to look it up since it's not explained -- FPTP

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yanno, this might be an interesting thread if it wasn't writ in code. I doubt anyone has a clue what you're talking about.

I had to look it up since it's not explained -- FPTP

Sorry, I thought I was writing for literate people. FPTP just happens to be the way you vote every time you vote (i'm assuming at your state level too).

Must make sure not to write USA as people might get confused. Code huh?

Anyway, sorry for the sarcasm, yes, it means first past the post which means the winner with the most votes wins, if they get 10% of the vote, the next guy gets 9.9999% you are the winner. Doesn't matter that most people don't want you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

For example

2012 house election, republicans got 47.6% of the vote but 51.7% of the seats. Democrats got 48.8% of the votes but 44.9% of the seats. Libertarians got 1.1% of the vote and 0% of the votes.

How many "democratic" countries see the third party with 1.1% of the vote?

Germany's 3rd party got 10% of the seats.

 

[editec]

What you're basically advocating is a parliamentary system.

 

[chikenwing]

What you're basically advocating is a parliamentary system.

Most likely!,we can tweak the electoral collage some,with proportional electors awarded,places like NY and Cal and other states where urban area out muscle the rest of the state,which effectively nullify their votes and representation at the Fed level. Some state are already going that way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yanno, this might be an interesting thread if it wasn't writ in code. I doubt anyone has a clue what you're talking about.

I had to look it up since it's not explained -- FPTP

Sorry, I thought I was writing for literate people. FPTP just happens to be the way you vote every time you vote (i'm assuming at your state level too).

Must make sure not to write USA as people might get confused. Code huh?

Anyway, sorry for the sarcasm, yes, it means first past the post which means the winner with the most votes wins, if they get 10% of the vote, the next guy gets 9.9999% you are the winner. Doesn't matter that most people don't want you.

Dude, that's not the only problem - far from it.
When you get ready to write in English, let me know.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What you're basically advocating is a parliamentary system.

Not necessarily. Just that the system that I do like is Germany's.

What I'm advocating is more democracy, an end to the monopoly two parties hold on US politics.

Will it happen? I doubt it, it's hard to get rid of monopolies when the only people who can end them are the people with the monopoly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dude, that's not the only problem - far from it.
When you get ready to write in English, let me know.

Did I say this was the only problem? No. So.... However, the way politicians look at politics is often based on how they are elected and the ease or difficulty with which they keep their seats and so on.

You want different solutions, changing the way people vote will change the way politicians act.

As for writing in English, please, tell me which part of what I wrote is not written in perfect English.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Dude, that's not the only problem - far from it.
When you get ready to write in English, let me know.

Did I say this was the only problem? No. So.... However, the way politicians look at politics is often based on how they are elected and the ease or difficulty with which they keep their seats and so on.

You want different solutions, changing the way people vote will change the way politicians act.

As for writing in English, please, tell me which part of what I wrote is not written in perfect English.

well in the first sentence: "...mostly on telling people what to thing"

Anyway, when I did muddle through that first post, I realized that you were just re-hashing an argument that has been done over and over.

I'd love to see at least one or two other parties gain influence. There would be (imho) a lot of benefits, but the parliamentary system has drawbacks to. The U.S. was formed with more of a tilt toward distrust of government and so we built a system that discourages rash actions. Considering we've build one of the most stable democratic republics in the world with a string of peaceful transfers of power that are pretty darn rare in the world, I'm not so sure a rash overhaul is what we need.

Just MHO

 

[frigidweirdo]

well in the first sentence: "...mostly on telling people what to thing"

Shocking huh? A typo, dum dum DUMMMMMMM!

Anyway, when I did muddle through that first post, I realized that you were just re-hashing an argument that has been done over and over.

I'd love to see at least one or two other parties gain influence. There would be (imho) a lot of benefits, but the parliamentary system has drawbacks to. The U.S. was formed with more of a tilt toward distrust of government and so we built a system that discourages rash actions. Considering we've build one of the most stable democratic republics in the world with a string of peaceful transfers of power that are pretty darn rare in the world, I'm not so sure a rash overhaul is what we need.

Just MHO

And what is even more shocking is that other people have said this argument. Guilty, I don't generally come up with something so new and so innovative that no one has ever thought of this idea before. Well, to be honest, I'm not a communist or a Nazi, I'm not extreme, I do look at what others have done in the past and see what works and what doesn't work. When I see something that works, I advocate it. When I see something that doesn't work, like the US political system, I denounce it.

Well, a "rash overhaul" is not necessary. You could quite easily have, say, the House become PR for the whole of the US. Currently the system has been played with at state level so the political parties can give themselves far more seats than they actually deserve and far less for the opposition.
Yes, it's stable, it's stable because it's so corrupt and the two parties of the monopoly don't want it to be destroyed.

However, the UK is a parliamentary system which has a 2 1/2 party system. Basically 2, and is as stable as the US if not more so. The last civil war there was 1600 something if I remember rightly.
Germany is a very stable country which actually works a lot better than most other countries. In fact they often think their leaders are useless, reading German political history makes you think they did really badly, until you compare them to others.

Norway has so much money in reserve it's incredible, far more stable than the US, UK and just about any other country going.

The US might be stable, but the way it's going, I see major problems within the next 50 years or so, and it could be civil war, because the system simply isn't working.

 

[Pogo]

Yanno, this might be an interesting thread if it wasn't writ in code. I doubt anyone has a clue what you're talking about.

I had to look it up since it's not explained -- FPTP

Sorry, I thought I was writing for literate people. FPTP just happens to be the way you vote every time you vote (i'm assuming at your state level too).

Must make sure not to write USA as people might get confused. Code huh?

Anyway, sorry for the sarcasm, yes, it means first past the post which means the winner with the most votes wins, if they get 10% of the vote, the next guy gets 9.9999% you are the winner. Doesn't matter that most people don't want you.

It's "literate" now to post threads in some obscure code that nobody ever heard of and then completely fail to explain what the fuck you're talking about?

If that's the case then I'll be illiterate. At least I won't be stuck on narcissistically cryptic.

Good luck with that ego. Hope the swelling goes down. Wacko.

 

[LeeM]

A common misconception is that parliamentary government and proportional representation are the same thing. One is a governing system; the other is the method used to elect the governing system.

The U.S. has a federal governing system elected by winner-take-all (first-past-the-post) elections. The UK and most former British colonies, as well as France, have parliamentary government elected by WTA/FPTP elections similar to ours. Most other democracies, including Germany and most of western and central Europe, elect their parliaments by proportional representation.

Adopting PR for some or all of our elections would not change the U.S. to a parliamentary system. It would go a long way toward revitalizing our politics and governance -- even it were only proportional representation for the Democrat and the Republican parties.

The best explanation I ever heard for U.S.-style two-party duopoly elections goes like this: I ask the store clerk for a Dr. Pepper. He says, 'Sorry, we only have Coke or Pepsi.' I say, 'Then give me Pepsi.' He says, 'Sorry, you can only get Coke.'

What that means is that not only do we not get to elect someone from a minor party. We don't even get our choice of major parties if the voting district we live in is controlled by the other major party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's "literate" now to post threads in some obscure code that nobody ever heard of and then completely fail to explain what the fuck you're talking about?

If that's the case then I'll be illiterate. At least I won't be stuck on narcissistically cryptic.

Good luck with that ego. Hope the swelling goes down. Wacko.

You'd rather not know the terminology of the topic you are talking about? Do I have an ego because I can actually use the terminology of the topic I'm talking about?

You know, FPTP is a very recognised acronym for first past the post.

First-past-the-post voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia knows what it is.

Advantages and disadvantages of FPTP system ? ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

This page knows what it is.

BBC - Higher Bitesize Modern Studies - Electoral systems, voting and political attitudes : Revision

BBC seems to know what it is, and this is for high school students.

You know, when you debate with people and you use terminology, maybe people won't understand it, but it's not that difficult, seriously, you can learn something. Instead the attitude seems to be "snigger, singgier, he called that cow a bovine, it's clearly a cow, snigger snigger".

All I can say is, America probably needs more help from God than some other countries if this is the case.

 

[Pogo]

It's "literate" now to post threads in some obscure code that nobody ever heard of and then completely fail to explain what the fuck you're talking about?

If that's the case then I'll be illiterate. At least I won't be stuck on narcissistically cryptic.

Good luck with that ego. Hope the swelling goes down. Wacko.

You'd rather not know the terminology of the topic you are talking about? Do I have an ego because I can actually use the terminology of the topic I'm talking about?

You know, FPTP is a very recognised acronym for first past the post.

First-past-the-post voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia knows what it is.

I take it from your spelling that you're British then?

Trust me, no one knows that term here. You might try breaking a sweat to write for your actual audience. That will require opening your eyes to what else might be going on outside the world of Numero Uno. And then declaring your reader is "illiterate" because you were too stupid to translate from your dialect? Poster, please. Get the fuck over yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

well in the first sentence: "...mostly on telling people what to thing"

Shocking huh? A typo, dum dum DUMMMMMMM! .

..............................dumb