Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1077
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
Posted: Thu 2004-04-22 18:53
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Separate Branches - A more perfect union |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
One problem I have with our current bicameral system is that the two houses really aren't all that different. They are both elected by the same method, and are supported by the same special interest groups. So what's the point in even having two separate houses?
As some of you may already be aware, this was not always the case. In the old days, Senator were appointed by the state legislators. While many viewed this practice as undemocratic, it did lead to Senators being beholden to local state interest instead of the same national lobby that funds the House of Representatives.
Another side effect of this was that the Senators didn't have to pander to the needs of the general public. Our supreme court is still filled in such a manner, with justices being appointed by our elected officials. This has a tendency to free them from the day-to-day political opinions of the masses. While this process does not completely free the justices from politics, it does allow them to focus on interpreting the law instead of pandering to what everybody else thinks the law should be.
Some people have argued that we should return to the old appointed Senate for these reasons. And some (like Ingsoc Officer) have suggested that we change over to the parliamentary system where people vote for a particular party, who then are allowed to appoint a number of seats based on the percentage of votes the party received.
And other people (including me) have suggested switching from our current "most votes win" type of electing, over to "Instant Runoff" or "Approval Voting" in order to assure that each representative actually receives a majority of votes -- and to allow people to vote for third parties without "wasting their vote".
So, without further adieu, here is how I would set up the government if I were present for the next continental congress.
- Executive Branch
--- President
Elected to a term of 5 years, and may not serve more than two terms.
Voted in using the current electoral college system, but with "Approval Voting" by the masses.
I would also limit the president’s "executive order" power. Of course, we need to give the president the power to act in "emergencies", but these orders should expire after 180 days unless ratified by congress. (Take a look at the dictator-like powers the president currently has here and here
The president should also be given the "line item veto" power.
--- Department heads
Appointed by the president, but the general public should be allowed to vote any official out by a referendum.
- Congress
Bicameral, similar to what we have now. But (similar to the Confederate Government) all spending bills should require a 2/3s majority, and each bill should be on one subject (a "crime bill" should not allocate funds for a new bridge in Boston)
--- Senate
Elected to a term of 6 years, can serve an unlimited number of terms.
Elected by "approval voting" by the entire state (instead of having two separate districts within a state)
--- House
Should be elected in a different manner than the senate.
Either-
A) General population votes for a particular party, then each party appoints officials to a number of seats based on the percent of the vote the party received -- and each official must have been a resident of the area in which he represents for at least 3 years.
-OR-
B) General population votes for a particular party, each party gets a number of seats based on their percentage. But instead of being appointed at the whim of the party, each party first holds a "caucus" in which party members (the common folk) can vote on the "pecking order" that politicians will be appointed in. It would be difficult to maintain such a list for each district, so a list would have to be compiled for each state or a "national list" would have to be used.
-OR-
C) A combination of two methods (a little like the English House of Lords, but not as archaic) where a certain number of seats are filled by a general election (approval voting, of course) and where some seats are filled by the parties (as explained above in line “A”)
In either case, their term should be 4 years, and representatives should not serve more than three terms.
-Judicial
Same as now. Justices appointed by the president and approved by congress.
- Federal Reserve (The privately owned "4th Branch" of Government)
Abolished. All currency should be printed by the U.S. Treasury.
- A new branch - The general Public
With the advent of the internet, there is really no reason why the general public should be given more say in government. While I think we should leave the power to create new laws with our elected officials, I think we should set up a system that would allow the general population to line item veto any law or regulation that they don't like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1297
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-01 23:26
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Far Enough? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| One problem I have with our current bicameral system is that the two houses really aren't all that different. They are both elected by the same method, and are supported by the same special interest groups. So what's the point in even having two separate houses? |
You probably already knew this but...
In the house of representatives, a state's representation is based upon its population. Whereas in the senate, each state is afforded equal representation through an equal number of senators. Supposedly, the senate was created as a counterbalance to appease the Jeffersonian 'Democrats', so that agrarian states would not be underrepresented in congress. Otherwise, the states containing the major population centers of colonial America (Baltimore, Boston, and Philadelphia, which tended to be run by an oligarchy of powerful aristocrats) would be able to extract concessions from the "Frontier States" by outvoting them, which of course had smaller populations (and, thus, less representation).
| Big Brother wrote: |
| As some of you may already be aware, this was not always the case. In the old days, Senator were appointed by the state legislators. While many viewed this practice as undemocratic, it did lead to Senators being beholden to local state interest instead of the same national lobby that funds the House of Representatives. |
As in any system of government, the more decentralized that it is, the more democratic the representation. Localities within different states can usually better pick representatives to their state legislature than they can decide who heads the executive branch. In my experience, people get more worked up over who the new school superintendent will be than who the new congressman from our district will be. People become more apathetic the more powerful their representative is.
As voters get further alienated from their representatives, they tend to assume that if their federal representatives do something not in the interest of their particular state, that that representative must be doing it in the interests of another type of locality (like a political party to which a particular citizen belongs), which must be in the majority. Such thinking allows federal representatives to do pretty much whatever they want without much accountability. If government is decentralized, the people will begin to play a more influencial role in determining social and economic policy, and national lobbying on behalf of the special interests will diminish substantially.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Another side effect of this was that the Senators didn't have to pander to the needs of the general public. Our supreme court is still filled in such a manner, with justices being appointed by our elected officials. This has a tendency to free them from the day-to-day political opinions of the masses. While this process does not completely free the justices from politics, it does allow them to focus on interpreting the law instead of pandering to what everybody else thinks the law should be. |
Sounds pretty undemocratic to me... I guess they need to be free from public scrutiny so that they don't have to act according to the "tyranny of the majority." However, I suppose that in modern America, where the discourse in public debate is narrower than ever, such a system would be justified if only the individuals selected by the elected representatives were not as corrupt as the representatives themselves.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Some people have argued that we should return to the old appointed Senate for these reasons. And some (like Ingsoc Officer) have suggested that we change over to the parliamentary system where people vote for a particular party, who then are allowed to appoint a number of seats based on the percentage of votes the party received.
|
*Yuck* This just seems to further alienate the voters from their representatives. Such a system could only work if party ideology was homogeneous, and then only if all of party members weren't corrupt. Even then, what's the point of filling representative seats with homogeneous ideology; it's just a waste of space. Just proportionally reduce the number of representative seats to the number of votes received, and then this system works.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And other people (including me) have suggested switching from our current "most votes win" type of electing, over to "Instant Runoff" or "Approval Voting" in order to assure that each representative actually receives a majority of votes -- and to allow people to vote for third parties without "wasting their vote". |
Good idea! This might actually work in bringing together a wide variety of opinions and ideologies. 
| Big Brother wrote: |
--- President
Elected to a term of 5 years, and may not serve more than two terms.
Voted in using the current electoral college system, but with "Approval Voting" by the masses.
I would also limit the president’s "executive order" power. Of course, we need to give the president the power to act in "emergencies", but these orders should expire after 180 days unless ratified by congress. (Take a look at the dictator-like powers the president currently has here and here
The president should also be given the "line item veto" power. |
I like the five years thing. That would eliminate possible party stalemates and allow for more legislation to be introduced. Two terms seems like an unreasonably short amount of time, though, with the tug-o'-war of party politics today. After all, FDR could never have implemented the New Deal or full economic Keynesianism in only two terms. How about if we elect the president to an unlimited term, until measurable public opinion (yearly *majority* elections) dictates otherwise? Then we hold real (*instant runoff*) elections for a new one. Throw out the electoral college.
Good idea of limiting the power of the president. That way, the people can't be dragged into wars like Vietnam or the current Iraqi War. 180 days seems like an awfully long time in this era of four-day wars and proportional responses, though.
| Big Brother wrote: |
- Congress
Bicameral, similar to what we have now. But (similar to the Confederate Government) all spending bills should require a 2/3s majority, and each bill should be on one subject (a "crime bill" should not allocate funds for a new bridge in Boston)
--- Senate
Elected to a term of 6 years, can serve an unlimited number of terms.
Elected by "approval voting" by the entire state (instead of having two separate districts within a state) |
Nasty riders and attachments to otherwise good bills are one of the major doors through which special interests slip their detrimental legislative agendas. The "one subject" bill idea could force special interests to dump their ideas into large lumps of legislation, thus placing them on the unpopular side of everything.
Requiring 2/3 majority on a spending bill probably won't stop frivolous and just plain stupid expenditures from being slipped into the budget. Who reads the United States Government Budget, anyway? Besides, if congress only arrives at budget impasses through partisan (assuming two-party) floorfights, disagreement over the budget is nothing more than illusion.
Eliminating "districts" within states will help to further the effectiveness of approval voting, but it will also further centralize government. Which is more important? I'm not sure, so let's just go with what you suggest.
| Big Brother wrote: |
--- House
Should be elected in a different manner than the senate.
Either-
A) General population votes for a particular party, then each party appoints officials to a number of seats based on the percent of the vote the party received -- and each official must have been a resident of the area in which he represents for at least 3 years.
-OR-
B) General population votes for a particular party, each party gets a number of seats based on their percentage. But instead of being appointed at the whim of the party, each party first holds a "caucus" in which party members (the common folk) can vote on the "pecking order" that politicians will be appointed in. It would be difficult to maintain such a list for each district, so a list would have to be compiled for each state or a "national list" would have to be used.
-OR-
C) A combination of two methods (a little like the English House of Lords, but not as archaic) where a certain number of seats are filled by a general election (approval voting, of course) and where some seats are filled by the parties (as explained above in line “A”)
In either case, their term should be 4 years, and representatives should not serve more than three terms.
|
This is where my real disagreement is, BB. Although this system would cut back on "voter fatigue", which results in poor representation, expecting a group to be homogeneous in their ideologies, behaviors, and level of corruption is a bit unrealistic. Parties tend to stamp out individual opinion, and cause voters to make moral, ethical, and ideological concessions to become a part of what they see as the "lesser evil."
| Big Brother wrote: |
-Judicial
Same as now. Justices appointed by the president and approved by congress. |
Our judical branch is, by far, the most efficient, uncorrupt, and just branch of American government. This is probably because it resides at the bottom of the power ladder. Only after all of the important decisions are made, only after the laws have been created, does the judical branch actually get some teeth. Our representatives should be more like our judges and justices.
However, in order to make the process a little more democratic, allow the people to vote in these appointees through approval voting (more than one appointee is mandatory), rather than letting the senate judiciary committee decide.
| Big Brother wrote: |
- Federal Reserve (The privately owned "4th Branch" of Government)
Abolished. All currency should be printed by the U.S. Treasury.
|
Will the US treasury still get to adjust the interest rates on federal reserve notes? Will it still be responsible for keeping the somewhat free economy out of depressions? Will it still be responsible for fostering enemic but steady and planned economic growth? Does it need to maintain the natural rate of unemplyment? Please elaborate. The change in that the US treasury would print currency does not seem to address the fundamental issues manifest in the Federal Reserve.
| Big Brother wrote: |
- A new branch - The general Public
With the advent of the internet, there is really no reason why the general public should be given more say in government. While I think we should leave the power to create new laws with our elected officials, I think we should set up a system that would allow the general population to line item veto any law or regulation that they don't like. |
The public can still write laws to be voted upon in congress. Otherwise, though, I agree completely. Direct democracy is always best, although at times it can be inefficient (which is why we have a representative democracy).
Also, can you create provisions to address corruption in government specifically? While most of the measures you propose would work if corruption was nonexistent, I don't think that many of them would reduce corruption otherwise.
Great ideas! I just had a few thoughts that might improve them, though. 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1804
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-21 22:50
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Anyone Out There... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I was wondering what the reason was for the lack of response to my rather ambitious post. Is it because everyone who read it was awed by its penetrating and perceptive insight, everyone who read it found it exceedingly stupid and not worthy of a response, or is it just that none have been interested enough to read it?
I thought it was OK.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #1805
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1697
Total Words: 329,434
Average words per post: 194.13
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-22 00:17
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Approval Voting sounds like the best idea. You won't be throwing away your third party vote.
Another system (useful for the House) is the system used in Ireland: Proportional Representation. Ever wonder how the smaller parties get representation? That's how. It uses a single transferrable vote(i.e. you number the candidates all the way down to the bottom, you CAN make your vote non-transferrable by not numbering candidates). This allows independents to run(and some independents have Dáil seats). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lt. Vanish
Spy
Post #1867
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 104
Total Words: 13,024
Average words per post: 125.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-05-24 21:51
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Proportional representation, unlike the Westminster Model, ensures that every vote counts. The U.S. and the U.K. both still face the problem of rotten boroughs. Under PR, the percentage of seats goes to the percentage of votes. I.E. if 40% voted for the Libertarian party, and there were 100 congressional seats available, then there would be 40 Libertarian Congressmen. The Senate could use instant-runoff voting to make it different from the lower house. This way every vote really does count, no one is disenfranchised and there aren't problems like there are in Florida and Texas where the group in power can give themselves more power by drawing district lines to give their own party has an even greater majority in each district. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1873
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-05-25 00:09
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Proportional Representation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
| Proportional representation, unlike the Westminster Model, ensures that every vote counts. The U.S. and the U.K. both still face the problem of rotten boroughs. Under PR, the percentage of seats goes to the percentage of votes. I.E. if 40% voted for the Libertarian party, and there were 100 congressional seats available, then there would be 40 Libertarian Congressmen. The Senate could use instant-runoff voting to make it different from the lower house. This way every vote really does count, no one is disenfranchised and there aren't problems like there are in Florida and Texas where the group in power can give themselves more power by drawing district lines to give their own party has an even greater majority in each district. |
Proportional representation would stamp out state, local, and municipal interests. If we were to count the national vote as one unit, and then divide up the seats in the house according to proportional representation, a state or district would most likely be assigned a congressman not copacetic to their interests, assuming representation based upon population still exists in the house.
Obviously, if California (with the greatest popular, and thus political, clout) were to be taken by the Libertarian Party in an election year, the percentage of the vote taken would exceed availabe seat capacity, and thus overflow into another state's representation, and thus abandoning the founding fathers' intentions of state and local interests being represented through the US Congress. Furthermore, the US Senate (with each state posessing an equal number of senators) in such a situation would have overspill that would totally stamp out a state's interest, instead fulfilling the federalists' fantasy of the greater population centers of the US controlling both houses of congress.
One way to remedy such a situation would be to increase the number of seats in the house according to a scale dependent upon the size of the state's hold on a proportional vote in congress, and to abolish the senate. However, then we would be left with one house of congress still based on population, but with approval voting instituted instead.
As I have said before, I think that proportional representation of a party in both houses of congress is a very bad idea. Parties already stamp out individual opinion enough.
| I wrote: |
| Parties tend to stamp out individual opinion, and cause voters to make moral, ethical, and ideological concessions to become a part of what they see as the "lesser evil." |
Should they be permitted to tramp upon state opinion as well? Although sometimes centralized federal action is required to keep one state's citizen's rights the equal to those of another's (such as the Civil Rights Movement [Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Acts, 13th and 14th amendments]), state government does need a say in national politics.
Last edited by A Priori on Wed 2004-05-26 20:49; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1874
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-05-25 00:50
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
| Proportional representation, unlike the Westminster Model, ensures that every vote counts. The U.S. and the U.K. both still face the problem of rotten boroughs. Under PR, the percentage of seats goes to the percentage of votes. I.E. if 40% voted for the Libertarian party, and there were 100 congressional seats available, then there would be 40 Libertarian Congressmen. The Senate could use instant-runoff voting to make it different from the lower house. This way every vote really does count, no one is disenfranchised and there aren't problems like there are in Florida and Texas where the group in power can give themselves more power by drawing district lines to give their own party has an even greater majority in each district. |
I do like the idea of Proportional Representation... but in a country as vast as the US, having representatives from each locality is important as well.
Currently, the House has 435 seats, proportioned among the states according to their population (with each state getting at least 1 seat). Perhaps we could institute a combined system, where 300 seats are proportioned among the states to be elected by a direct instant run-off vote, and 150 seats to be appointed by the parties according to their percentage of the popular vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1894
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-05-25 20:46
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Well Said |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
| Proportional representation, unlike the Westminster Model, ensures that every vote counts. The U.S. and the U.K. both still face the problem of rotten boroughs. Under PR, the percentage of seats goes to the percentage of votes. I.E. if 40% voted for the Libertarian party, and there were 100 congressional seats available, then there would be 40 Libertarian Congressmen. The Senate could use instant-runoff voting to make it different from the lower house. This way every vote really does count, no one is disenfranchised and there aren't problems like there are in Florida and Texas where the group in power can give themselves more power by drawing district lines to give their own party has an even greater majority in each district. |
I do like the idea of Proportional Representation... but in a country as vast as the US, having representatives from each locality is important as well.
Currently, the House has 435 seats, proportioned among the states according to their population (with each state getting at least 1 seat). Perhaps we could institute a combined system, where 300 seats are proportioned among the states to be elected by a direct instant run-off vote, and 150 seats to be appointed by the parties according to their percentage of the popular vote. |
Well said, BB.
I need to learn to write better! 
Would these 150 representatives be elected proportionally within their states or districts, and then have these votes carried proportionally only as far as their state's representation in congress?
I hate to keep jumping up and down on this, but what about the federal reserve? It plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability and growth of the American economy. Yes, I know I'm wrong for thinking this, but please elaborate. I'm curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lt. Vanish
Spy
Post #1895
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 104
Total Words: 13,024
Average words per post: 125.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-05-25 21:39
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I am not proposing using a PR system with the entire country as a single constituency group. I would do it by each state as a constituency group. I would not want to take power away from municipalities or states, quite the opposite. Congressmen need to be elected by state.
PR or IRV are better than these first-past-the-post systems, and I think you would agree with me Ingsoc officer would you not? I am sure you have the same problem,s with rotten boroughs as we do here. We call it gerrymandering of districts.
As for the rest, what BB proposes is an excellent idea |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1917
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
 
  
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-05-26 15:17
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2008-05-20 09:40; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
demondeacon
Junior Spy
Post #1923
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 25
Total Words: 1,408
Average words per post: 56.32
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-05-26 15:42
|
|
| Politics: Brotherhood |
Country: Oceania |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| we have a electorial college still because people vote without knowing the issues. in other words "we are morons who can not think for ourselves." according to the govt i think we should try to get people to be more politically aware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1935
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-05-26 19:30
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Electoral College |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Benefits of the Electoral College...
1. Localizes corruption. If some jag-off adds 50,000 votes in Chicago, he can only fuck with Illinois' electoral votes. So, if a state is ruled by, say, the Democrats, they will probably end up winning the electoral votes anyway, so adding more fake ballots would serve no purpose.
2. Allow for recounts. We all remember what happened in Florida in 2000. Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if we had to recount the WHOLE nation.
3. Maintains importance of Rural vote.
Saying that the Electoral College is un-democratic is to call congress the same. Congress is elected BY STATE, and the president is as well. Nobody ever talks about it, but it is entirely possible for one party to receive 60% of the nation-wide "popular" vote, yet only win 50 Senatorial seats. Yet, nobody complains about that. The presidential election is the exact same process. Each state get a number of Electoral votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives.
Distribution of Electoral Votes
Illinois, for instance, has 2 Senators, 19 Representatives, and 21 Electoral Votes. If the 21 electoral votes are "unfair" then so are the 2 Senators, 19 Representatives.
In 2000, Gore had 50,999,897 votes (48.38%) and Bush had 50,456,002 (47.87%)
This is a difference of 0.51%. The fact that Bush came out ahead hardly represents a complete breakdown of the system. In truth, the Electoral College actually served a good purpose here -- a way of breaking a near tie. Like I said before... I shudder to think about what would have happened if every single county in the nation started re-counting.
The only real "break-down of the democratic system" I see here is that the republicrats received 96.25% of the popular vote. The closeness of the vote only demonstrates how close the two parties actually are.... I think most people just flipped a coin to decide.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1937
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-05-26 21:12
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Electoral College |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
First of all, thank you all for responding and propelling this thread to the top of the board. My hat is off to you.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Saying that the Electoral College is un-democratic is to call congress the same. Congress is elected BY STATE, and the president is as well. Nobody ever talks about it, but it is entirely possible for one party to receive 60% of the nation-wide "popular" vote, yet only win 50 Senatorial seats. Yet, nobody complains about that. The presidential election is the exact same process. Each state get a number of Electoral votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. |
Perhaps I should clarify my position on the electoral college. The electoral college for single-seat, federal elections is a bad idea. It screwed up pretty bad in the last election, anyway.
The electoral college is supposed to assign each state a specific value determined by population in order to localize corruption and keep things efficient (like BB said). However, in the 2000 presidential election, Gore won 50,996,116 votes, and thus 48.4% of the popular vote. Bush won 50,456,169 votes, and thus 47.9% of the popular vote. In our current system of voting (*plurality* or *majority* voting), the winner should invariably be the candidate with the greatest popular vote.
But in our election...
50,456,169 > 50,996,116
Seems eerily familiar... (2 + 2 = 5)
The electoral college is not supposed to interfere with the popular vote, which should, of course, always determine who is elected. While I should not say that such a system doesn't work, perhaps instead of recounts in florida, there should have been some enquiries into why the electoral college inaccurately apportioned electoral votes to a state's population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lt. Vanish
Spy
Post #1986
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 104
Total Words: 13,024
Average words per post: 125.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-27 23:58
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| The political system over here is very different from the American system. My country is neither a republic nor a federation. There aren't really any single-seat elections, and the voters focus on party and ideology to a considerably higher degree. We rely solely on proportional representation; a party must get 4 % of all the votes to enter the Parliament, though. I can't recall I've ever heard of gerrymandering over here, and I seriously doubt that it's possible to manipulate the system in this way. |
Sorry Insoc. I assumed that you were from the U.K. or some other country that follows the Westminster model. You seem to be describing one of the Western European or Scandinavian countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1991
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-28 02:27
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I have a question about these proportional representitive systems....
How do the parties decide on who to give seats to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2002
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1697
Total Words: 329,434
Average words per post: 194.13
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-28 08:42
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| The people have to separately run for election in their constituency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2040
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-29 21:19
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| --- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
