How do we restore democracy to the United States?

[Telconi]

It's not that they were punitive, it's that they were not consented to. Didn't we all learn "No Taxation Without Representation" in elementary school?

Also, it was part of a long list of transgressions, most onerously, Britain prevent Americans from settling the Ohio Country, even though many had just fought and died to conquer those lands just ten years before.

Because the Empire didn't want to cause trouble with the natives.

Then why fight a war against them?

[Forsher]

Because the Empire didn't want to cause trouble with the natives.

Then why fight a war against them?

Just to be clear, which war?

[Yorkers]

Then why fight a war against them?

Just to be clear, which war?

The French and Indian War (the North American theater of the Seven Years' War).

Britain conquered New France from the French, and the American colonists conquered what would become the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan from French-backed Indians. The Americans conquered these lands with the intention of being able to settle them, and then when the British restricted settlement, they were understandably pissed off.

[Yorkers]

It's not that they were punitive, it's that they were not consented to. Didn't we all learn "No Taxation Without Representation" in elementary school?

Also, it was part of a long list of transgressions, most onerously, Britain prevent Americans from settling the Ohio Country, even though many had just fought and died to conquer those lands just ten years before.

Because the Empire didn't want to cause trouble with the natives.

They already had trouble when the French were giving those natives guns and a war started.

[Mattopilos]

It's also completely unnecessary,, if that's the only purpose of a written constitution... as shown by Real Life.
Not that written constitutions must succeed in constraining (electoral) majorities.

I never said it was a logical step to limit mob rule, given it has rarely been an issue without it, as far as I know.

[Salandriagado]

I suggest that parliament's decision is a function of electoral outcomes, which you can see are unambiguously a function of "the plebs".

E = X + 4
G = ln(E)

if C is the result of f(G) then there is some e such that C = ln(e)

=> C = ln(x+4)

That is, if we imagine that C is constitutional change we have thus used maths to show that whatever electorate's constitution has been change is dependent upon the people, i.e. people have power. (Disclaimer... my maths may be terrible... you get the idea, yes?)

[snip]

*Perhaps Salandriagado will read this post. As far as I remember, he's actually good at maths so if I've done something completely stupid above I and he sees it, I'm sure I'll end up in the gallery of stupid quotes... this is the nature of forums, in the long term you end up with some sort of long term quality control.

You might have ended up there, but... well, I've been marking first year stuff all morning, so my idea of "terrible" has gotten worse.


That being said: yeah, your maths doesn't make any sense at all. No objections to the actual idea, but... yeah.

[Ifreann]

Federal prohibition on non-citizens voting

lol

[Genivaria]

Because the Empire didn't want to cause trouble with the natives.

They already had trouble when the French were giving those natives guns and a war started.

That's not the same thing as the American expanding west and spending decades warring with the native.

[Liriena]

The electoral college is an anachronism, and it undermines the most basic principle of democracy (that every person's vote is equal in worth). Also, voter ID laws as they exist today are little more than poll taxes that purposefully depress turnout among Democratic-leaning demographics, and no, Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote because of undocumented immigrants voting. This is a far right lie, and a stupid one at that.

Also... "filthy urban dwellers"? That's you insulting many of your fellow posters.

America was never truly a democracy, so why make it one? America is a representative republic.

There are an awful lot of representative republics that elect their presidents through the popular vote, so I fail to see how that excuses the continued existence of a blatant anti-egalitarian anachronism.

Plus, I don't happen to care about offending people...

And you're proud of your lack of empathy, a basic and necessary human trait?

[Forsher]

It's also completely unnecessary,, if that's the only purpose of a written constitution... as shown by Real Life.
Not that written constitutions must succeed in constraining (electoral) majorities.

I never said it was a logical step to limit mob rule

True. However, other people might think that.

You might have ended up there, but... well, I've been marking first year stuff all morning, so my idea of "terrible" has gotten worse.

The worst I ever did on a maths assignment was 54%... I did much worse in the exam (31%) for that course though (interestingly I did better in the theoretically more difficult successor course... 53% in the exam). This is why I had all the disclaimers.

That being said: yeah, your maths doesn't make any sense at all. No objections to the actual idea, but... yeah.

I have redescribed it as an analogy to make it clearer that the idea is the important thing.

(If we go back to my failed career as a maths student*... I always felt that I could grasp the idea, i.e. recognise what the question wanted, generally start it but, practically, never finish the answer... in assignments, of course, one can follow the procedure in example problems... the 54% assignment was left late and I can tell you for that one I didn't get the ideas and, based on not doing much better in the previous assignment, the "grasped the idea" thing probably applies more to the successor course.)

*I had to integrate something last year. I hadn't had to do so for two years... which was sort of shocking actually (differentiation is much more common).

[Olthar]

Something I think we should do is replace the single vote system with a rank vote system. Instead of voting for the one candidate you want to win, you rank them based on who you most want to see win. Whoever you rank as number one gets a full vote, and then the others get progressively smaller fractions of votes. This would help eliminate the main problem 3rd party candidates face where people feel like they're "wasting" their vote.

[Hawaii and Midway Atoll]

Something I think we should do is replace the single vote system with a rank vote system. Instead of voting for the one candidate you want to win, you rank them based on who you most want to see win. Whoever you rank as number one gets a full vote, and then the others get progressively smaller fractions of votes. This would help eliminate the main problem 3rd party candidates face where people feel like they're "wasting" their vote.

True, although it won't put 3rd parties on a completely equal playing field, it would give them more bargaining power, especially if this is combined with a run-off system.

[Lorkhan]

What would you personally do to put forth a fair electoral system in the United States?

Gather every lobbyist into one big giant room and then activate a bomb hidden beneath the carpet.

[San Lumen]

Make gerrymandering illegal, ensure that everyone who wants to vote has the opportunity to do so, and get rid of the electoral college.

[Shofercia]

Don't just say remove the electoral college cause it favors the republicans, you know theres more to do than that. What would you personally do to put forth a fair electoral system in the United States? Besides the electoral college, you may want to put your opinions on
-Referendums
-Prisoner Voting Rights
-Superdelegates
-Third Parties
-E-Democracy
-Voter IDs
-Run off voting

- Restore Democracy
- Superdelegates

[Shofercia]

Here's an idea:

Abolish the Electoral College and have Congress elected on a party basis instead of by individual voting. Senators will still be there to assign pork barrel spending to represent their states.

And here's why that'll never happen: under the Electoral College, we only get a Democrat or a Republican as president. Unless one party becomes too powerful, the EC will never be abolished.

[Bressen]

I always thought that the UKs set up for a democracy is pretty good, though obviously there's still some creases we need to iron out. That would require radical reform, however.

I think a good starting point for the US is to remove the 15% vote polling requirement for third party candidates to appear at the Presidential election debates. Instead, you could add the most popular third party candidate to the Presidential debate regardless of their polling percentage.

Whilst not a one-fix-all solution, throwing in a third party candidate into one of the most decisive parts of an election campaign will definitely help in breaking the barrier of the current two party system.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

we will deliver the US to the uk again plox

[Farnhamia]

What would you personally do to put forth a fair electoral system in the United States?

Gather every lobbyist into one big giant room and then activate a bomb hidden beneath the carpet.

When a thread has not had a new post in more than four (4) weeks, do not post in it. It is considered defunk. If you think it is important to revive it, ask for permission in Moderation.