Time for a new system

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't matter what you want in regards the Electoral College or how we elect representation since in order to change it you need a Constitutional Amendment and NO small State will ever agree to lose what little power they have now in regards the Big States and Cities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No.

PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.

I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.

I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.

The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.

Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.

Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).

I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.

I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.

Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.

However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.

No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.

I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.

No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.

I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....

 

[GWV5903]

No.

PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.

I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.

I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.

The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.

Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.

Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).

I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.

I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.

Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.

However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.

No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.

I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.

No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.

I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....

No you're an idiot, STFU and whine to yourself in the corner...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

What happened Tuesday was the will of the people. If you look at an electoral map you can easily see why this country will not let itself be ruled by a few blueberries. Just accept that 2/3 of the states will never agree to this constitutional change. The only other thing is to overthrow the government and replace it with one you like better. Good luck with that one.

 

[Spare_change]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

When the system doesn't give you the result you want, change the system.

The electoral college is a crucial, and necessary, element of our democracy.

 

[GWV5903]

The electoral college is a crucial, and necessary, element of our democracy.

Only a loser wants the EC to change...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No.

PR simply enshrines the power in parties rather than candidates. That is the opposite of what we need.

I prefer going to a IRV for the presidential race (and that also addresses Contumacious statements as well). It removes the stigmas associated with third party voting allowing people to vote their conscious without splitting the vote AND the winning candidate receives a plurality of the vote every time.

I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.

The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.

Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.

Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).

I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.

I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.

Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.

However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.

No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.

I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.

No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.

I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....

The people vote just fine. Look at the electoral map. Which state is going to allow Detroit or Chicago tell them what to do?

 

[westwall]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

The Founders didn't want mob rule, which is why they set up the Electoral College. They were far, far smarter than you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry, but the power is enshrined MASSIVELY in parties in the US. The parties in the US, the two of them, are far stronger than any party in Germany.

The German system has a duel system, I like it a lot. You vote twice. You vote for your constituency member, who gets elected. Once they are all elected then party lists take over. So you get both.

Also, in the presidential election, you'd have the popular vote, rather than the farce of the electoral college, but in Congress you'd have a similar system to Germany.

Personally I think the presidential election should be like France. A run off system. People can vote for whoever they like in the first round. Then in the 2nd round they vote for those who came in the top two (or potentially top three if the 3rd placed person got enough votes).

I never said that the power was not vested in parties here. What I said was that what you were talking about has that problem as well.

I agree with the runoff voting which is why I said I supported IRV. I forgot to put my link in my last post:
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

^this, IMHO, would do a LOT to help people get actual representation rather than just lip service.

Every system has a problem. Does that mean we shouldn't have a system? Well that'd be a problem too. Oh no.

However the FPTP + PR system has a lot less problems than the US system.

No, it means that I do not see merit in a parliamentary system. You are the one that seems to think opposition to a PA means that I accept what we have or don't want a system. I gave you what I think would be a drastic improvement.

I do not think that a PA would be an improvement at all. Even more, it would be fundamentally against a the basic concepts of this nation. Namely separation of powers.

No, I'm not calling for a change in having three separate parts of the government. I'm talking about changing the way people vote.

I've not said a single thing about changing the separation of powers....

No you're an idiot, STFU and whine to yourself in the corner...

Wow, insults.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

What happened Tuesday was the will of the people. If you look at an electoral map you can easily see why this country will not let itself be ruled by a few blueberries. Just accept that 2/3 of the states will never agree to this constitutional change. The only other thing is to overthrow the government and replace it with one you like better. Good luck with that one.

Was it? The "will of the people" would probably be the person who got the majority. Even then it wasn't a high majority. The US is majorly divided.

If you look at the electoral college map you'll see that some states are close.

Trump won Michigan by 0.27% of the vote. The smallest difference. that's about 12,000 votes which count for 16 electoral college votes. Yeah, the vote was almost the same, and instead of splitting the votes, all went to Trump based on 12,000 votes.

Whereas you have DC where Hillary won by 86%, she got 250,000 votes MORE than Trump and got only 3 electoral college votes. Trump won 4 states with LESS votes than Hillary got in DC. That got him 12 electoral college votes for those 4 states with less than 1 million votes. Then again Hillary won Colorado with 1.2 million votes and only got 9 electoral college votes.

Nothing makes sense.

1. Michigan, 0.27% 16 EC votes
2. New Hampshire, 0.37% 4 EC votes
3. Wisconsin, 0.93% 10 EC votes
4. Pennsylvania, 1.24% 20 EC votes
5. Florida, 1.27% 29 EC votes
6. Minnesota, 1.46% 10 EC votes
7. Colorado, 2.62% 9 EC votes
8. Maine, 2.68% 3 EC votes
9. Nevada, 2.73% 6 EC votes
10. North Carolina, 3.77% 15 EC votes
11. Arizona, 4.40% 11 EC votes
12. Virginia, 4.81% 13 EC votes
    

Here are the closest races, below 5%. Trump won all the 5%-10%, here Hillary won half and Trump won half. Trump won 4 out of 5 of the closest races.

However Hillary's highest was 13 EC votes, Trump's lowest was 10. Trump won 101 votes to Hillary's 45. Is that fair? Clearly not.

It wasn't the will of the people in any sense.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Our system was set up a long time ago, even before smartphone were invented I'm pretty sure. It could be updated.

I can imagine a system where we don't just get to vote directly for representatives, but for laws, bills and budgets too.

But then I think about Plato who cautioned against democracy and rule by ******* amateurs. That's the weak point of democracy, the fact that people get to decide on complex issues that they've never been trained to understand.

Plato's ideal would be more along the lines of a system where people achieve office by passing rigorous academic tests.

 

[TheDude]

sorry, but suck ass. We don't need a system where mother ******* Southern Ca. and New York DICTATE who runs the country. Our founding fathers were smart and knew how to do shit. You're not that guy. Don't take it personally, we're not as functional or wise.

I'd be for increasing the number of electoral votes and reducing it down to districts however. Don't hold your breath though, because we have enough problems with simple tasks.

Popular vote is simple-minded and should NEVER be accomplished. It's bad enough small California towns fall under the shit hole created by the bay area and southern ca.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The electoral college is a crucial, and necessary, element of our democracy.

Only a loser wants the EC to change...

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts on a forum full of ridiculous posts. You don't even bother to make your case, just try and bully people by telling them they're this or that if they disagree with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

sorry, but suck ass. We don't need a system where mother ******* Southern Ca. and New York DICTATE who runs the country. Our founding fathers were smart and knew how to do shit. You're not that guy. Don't take it personally, we're just not as functional or wise.

I'd be for increasing the number of electoral votes and reducing it down to districts however. But popular vote is simple-minded and should NEVER be accomplished. It's bad enough small California towns fall under the shit hole created by the bay area and southern ca.

Popular vote is "simple-minded" so a system which gives more power to some people's vote than others is a better system? How the **** do you come up with that?

Why isn't one person one vote a better system?

In other words, you don't like California and New York and therefore you don't want them to have as much voting power as other states? That's ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our system was set up a long time ago, even before smartphone were invented I'm pretty sure. It could be updated.

I can imagine a system where we don't just get to vote directly for representatives, but for laws, bills and budgets too.

But then I think about Plato who cautioned against democracy and rule by ******* amateurs. That's the weak point of democracy, the fact that people get to decide on complex issues that they've never been trained to understand.

Plato's ideal would be more along the lines of a system where people achieve office by passing rigorous academic tests.

I've been getting the argument that "this is the system we have, therefore we can't change it" sort of attitude, as if the system has been the same. In 1789 most states didn't have a vote for their electoral college votes, they were simply given.

So, they want it as the founders had it, fine, let's have only these states electing the President, and only those who had a popular vote can vote, and only those people who would have qualified in an equivalent back then can vote. Yeah, let's go back to how it was.

 

[TheDude]

No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in **** I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in **** I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.

In other words you like the fact that Republicans can only get elected by getting less votes than Democrats. So, from going from wanting change, you now don't want change. Wow.

 

[TheDude]

No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in **** I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.

In other words you like the fact that Republicans can only get elected by getting less votes than Democrats. So, from going from wanting change, you now don't want change. Wow.

Holly shit, I can't believe I'm responding. I'm out. Wise up, and read what you wrote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. What YOU want, likely because you're a butt-hurt liberal at the moment (there's hope), is for liberal big cities to decide who is POUS. Trust me, our founding fathers were a lot smarter and capable than we are. Again, i'd be fore revision down to districts or counties for a more accurate representation, but there's no way in **** I want shitholes like Frisco, Chicago, southern ca. DICTATING how this country is run. Count your blessings we don't base it on land mass, because you'd likely not see a democrat in high office during your lifetime.

In other words you like the fact that Republicans can only get elected by getting less votes than Democrats. So, from going from wanting change, you now don't want change. Wow.

Holly shit, I can't believe I'm responding. I'm out. Wise up, and read what you wrote.

"Holly shit"? What is this festive season. Good that you're out, you're clearly only interested in getting what you want. I know what the **** I wrote, I don't have any problem with it, because I actually thought about it. Why don't you try doing it, instead of insulting people the whole time?

 

[Spare_change]

sorry, but suck ass. We don't need a system where mother ******* Southern Ca. and New York DICTATE who runs the country. Our founding fathers were smart and knew how to do shit. You're not that guy. Don't take it personally, we're just not as functional or wise.

I'd be for increasing the number of electoral votes and reducing it down to districts however. But popular vote is simple-minded and should NEVER be accomplished. It's bad enough small California towns fall under the shit hole created by the bay area and southern ca.

Popular vote is "simple-minded" so a system which gives more power to some people's vote than others is a better system? How the **** do you come up with that?

Why isn't one person one vote a better system?

In other words, you don't like California and New York and therefore you don't want them to have as much voting power as other states? That's ridiculous.

By what possible distortion of reality do you determine that the Electoral College gives "more power to some people's vote than others.. " ?

Perhaps you're not familiar with how the EC works ... do your homework and get back to us.