Time for a new system

[FA_Q2]

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....

A parliamentary system elects the president from the legislative branch.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The EC had nothing to do with mob rule. It had to do with limited technology in communication.

The bars against mob rule are representation (as the 'mob' does not directly vote on anything federal), the senate as they were supposed to be the representatives of the states and the limitation on voting in the first place which no longer exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

As I stated earlier, it would not take an amendment or that many states to effectively remove the electoral college. As few as 13 states could accomplish this.

Still unlikely but it would not take an amendment.

 

[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....

A parliamentary system elects the president from the legislative branch.

Well done. You get a star. What's your point?

(Note, I didn't say that I wanted it to change to a parliamentary system, I'm confused as to why you're telling me this stuff)

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

It's very simple. The Presidency needs to be changed to a popular plurality election. However, you're only crying about this right now because your candidate lost.

No, I'm not. If you had seen my posts over the last few months, and even before, I've spoken about PR a lot. I've been saying all along, Trump isn't real change, when people say Hillary isn't change, because the system doesn't change, nothing changes, even if you have Trump.

But hey, just fling the attacks at me based on not knowing anything about me.

Shut up, dumb ****. I didn't sling any attacks at you, but since you insist on making the accusation I'll just have to live up to it. So please do everyone a favor and go **** yourself with a cactus and bleed out before you infect the the world further with your extra chromosomes. I agree that the EC needs to be eliminated, but I don't go running to bring it up just because I'm butthurt about the results of one particular election that didn't go the way I wanted it.

 

[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.

It's very simple. The Presidency needs to be changed to a popular plurality election. However, you're only crying about this right now because your candidate lost.

No, I'm not. If you had seen my posts over the last few months, and even before, I've spoken about PR a lot. I've been saying all along, Trump isn't real change, when people say Hillary isn't change, because the system doesn't change, nothing changes, even if you have Trump.

But hey, just fling the attacks at me based on not knowing anything about me.

Shut up, dumb ****. I didn't sling any attacks at you, but since you insist on making the accusation I'll just have to live up to it. So please do everyone a favor and go **** yourself with a cactus and bleed out before you infect the the world further with your extra chromosomes. I agree that the EC needs to be eliminated, but I don't go running to bring it up just because I'm butthurt about the results of one particular election that didn't go the way I wanted it.

Wow, insults.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

It's very simple. The Presidency needs to be changed to a popular plurality election. However, you're only crying about this right now because your candidate lost.

No, I'm not. If you had seen my posts over the last few months, and even before, I've spoken about PR a lot. I've been saying all along, Trump isn't real change, when people say Hillary isn't change, because the system doesn't change, nothing changes, even if you have Trump.

But hey, just fling the attacks at me based on not knowing anything about me.

Shut up, dumb ****. I didn't sling any attacks at you, but since you insist on making the accusation I'll just have to live up to it. So please do everyone a favor and go **** yourself with a cactus and bleed out before you infect the the world further with your extra chromosomes. I agree that the EC needs to be eliminated, but I don't go running to bring it up just because I'm butthurt about the results of one particular election that didn't go the way I wanted it.

Wow, insults.

Upon your request. Now stay on topic.

 

[Scorpion]

Hillary Clinton DID NOT WIN THE MAJORITY. 52.5% voted AGAINST HER.
GET OVER IT!!

And we're a representative republic not a democracy.
Damn you guys are whiny bitches.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary Clinton DID NOT WIN THE MAJORITY. 52.5% voted AGAINST HER.
GET OVER IT!!

And we're a representative republic not a democracy.
Damn you guys are whiny bitches.

How do you know all 52% voted against her?

Many Republicans would have voted Republican no matter whether they put up Trump or a dancing monkey. Libertarians probably increased their percentage by 2.25% because people didn't want to vote Trump.

 

[SwimExpert]

How do you know all 52% voted against her?

It's called arithmetic. You'll learn about it next year when you start big boy school.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do you know all 52% voted against her?

It's called arithmetic. You'll learn about it next year when you start big boy school.

No, there's a big difference between voting against Hillary and voting for someone else, or voting against Trump.

As for your pathetic attempt at insulting.....

 

[Rustic]

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.

You have the freedom to leave, do you need financial help to do so?

So, anyone who wants change should just leave?

I mean, Trump won a large section of the country because he shouted "CHANGE" at the top of his voice. People want change. And now you're suggesting they all leave the country so the rich can continue to control everything? Wonderful.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

That's false, but to be expected from an ignorant maggot like you. The EC was set up to enable slave states to restrict voting rights, without them having to sacrifice influence in the selection of a President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

That's false, but to be expected from an ignorant maggot like you. The EC was set up to enable slave states to restrict voting rights, without them having to sacrifice influence in the selection of a President.

Actually since we have the words of the Founders and they said no such thing nor implied any such thing you need to back up your lie.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

That's false, but to be expected from an ignorant maggot like you. The EC was set up to enable slave states to restrict voting rights, without them having to sacrifice influence in the selection of a President.

Actually since we have the words of the Founders and they said no such thing nor implied any such thing you need to back up your lie.

I'm sorry, you've quoted my post, but you clearly are talking to someone else. Because there is no lie in anything I've said. Now, that you're an ignorant moron is a fact beyond my control. Maybe if you had set goals in your youth to do something with your life other than being ******* moron you might have gone and gotten yourself an education somewhere along the way. If you had, you wouldn't be sounding like such a dunce.

Seeing as I now am left with the unsavory task of trying to educate a ******* idiot with too many chromosomes, let's take a look at "the words of the Founders" as you say, particularly convention record keeper James Madison himself:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of sufffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

So now that you've thoroughly made an ass of yourself, perhaps you can kindly spend the rest of your evening excusing us form the torment of your existence.

Thank you for your service, BTW.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

That's false, but to be expected from an ignorant maggot like you. The EC was set up to enable slave states to restrict voting rights, without them having to sacrifice influence in the selection of a President.

Actually since we have the words of the Founders and they said no such thing nor implied any such thing you need to back up your lie.

I'm sorry, you've quoted my post, but you clearly are talking to someone else. Because there is no lie in anything I've said. Now, that you're an ignorant moron is a fact beyond my control. Maybe if you had set goals in your youth to do something with your life other than being ******* moron you might have gone and gotten yourself an education somewhere along the way. If you had, you wouldn't be sounding like such a dunce.

Seeing as I now am left with the unsavory task of trying to educate a ******* idiot with too many chromosomes, let's take a look at "the words of the Founders" as you say, particularly convention record keeper James Madison himself:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of sufffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

So now that you've thoroughly made an ass of yourself, perhaps you can kindly spend the rest of your evening excusing us form the torment of your existence.

Thank you for your service, BTW.

Retard alert there are dozens of quotes that refute your claim and explain why the EC was created. The idiot is you.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

That's false, but to be expected from an ignorant maggot like you. The EC was set up to enable slave states to restrict voting rights, without them having to sacrifice influence in the selection of a President.

Actually since we have the words of the Founders and they said no such thing nor implied any such thing you need to back up your lie.

I'm sorry, you've quoted my post, but you clearly are talking to someone else. Because there is no lie in anything I've said. Now, that you're an ignorant moron is a fact beyond my control. Maybe if you had set goals in your youth to do something with your life other than being ******* moron you might have gone and gotten yourself an education somewhere along the way. If you had, you wouldn't be sounding like such a dunce.

Seeing as I now am left with the unsavory task of trying to educate a ******* idiot with too many chromosomes, let's take a look at "the words of the Founders" as you say, particularly convention record keeper James Madison himself:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of sufffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

So now that you've thoroughly made an ass of yourself, perhaps you can kindly spend the rest of your evening excusing us form the torment of your existence.

Thank you for your service, BTW.

Retard alert there are dozens of quotes that refute your claim and explain why the EC was created. The idiot is you.

Bring 'em on then, **** stick! I just gave you the records from the Convention itself. I'm dying for you to make an even bigger ass out of yourself!

 

[SwimExpert]

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....

A parliamentary system elects the president from the legislative branch.

Well done. You get a star. What's your point?

(Note, I didn't say that I wanted it to change to a parliamentary system, I'm confused as to why you're telling me this stuff)

Not sure why I thought I could have an adult conversation with you. Here, you can have a gold star as well and I won't bother with your condescending garbage anymore.

He's like Donald Trump. Gets you nodding your head with something that sounds like it could be good. Then before you know it he's all over the ******* place and you're asking "Why, God? Why, God? Why, oh ******* why, do I do this to myself all the time? When will I ******* learn?"

 

[GWV5903]

Coward

 

[Onyx]

Time for a new system

Time to put an end to systems.

Human beings do not need systems. We need to start self governing.