US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

[San Lumen]

How would that make your representatives represent you as opposed to now? And that would change nothing for statewide elections.

Riddle me this: are the small number of republicans in Philadelphia not represented by the city council, the mayor and other citywide officials elected overwhelmingly in a free and fair election?

Because I'd actually have a representative who actually represents me, not someone who only is represented by the majority.

No they're not, when one party controls everything the minority gets no say.

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Because I'd actually have a representative who actually represents me, not someone who only is represented by the majority.

No they're not, when one party controls everything the minority gets no say.

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

An opposition party in the council is quite useful, you know

[Freezic Vast]

Because I'd actually have a representative who actually represents me, not someone who only is represented by the majority.

No they're not, when one party controls everything the minority gets no say.

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

You obviously have no idea what proportional representation is, that's your problem.

[San Lumen]

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

You obviously have no idea what proportional representation is, that's your problem.

A party gets a share of seats based on what percentage of the vote they get.

But as Vassenor pointed out: Proportional representation is based on who lives where.

How would it change anything in state like Nevada where 75 percent of the population is in Clark County?

Also do tell how you would reform Philadelphia government

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You obviously have no idea what proportional representation is, that's your problem.

A party gets a share of seats based on what percentage of the vote they get.

But as Vassenor pointed out: Proportional representation is based on who lives where.

How would it change anything in state like Nevada where 75 percent of the population is in Clark County?

Also do tell how you would reform Philadelphia government

No, what Vassenor said was wrong.
Proportional representation works on the basis of the population amongst those being elected in a said election.

[San Lumen]

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

An opposition party in the council is quite useful, you know

The Philadelphia City charter requires that at least two members of the at large seats on the council of which there are seven be held by the opposition party guaranteeing two republicans sit on the council. Ten seats are elected by district

[Thermodolia]

Because I'd actually have a representative who actually represents me, not someone who only is represented by the majority.

No they're not, when one party controls everything the minority gets no say.

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

Actually a PR voting system could definitely change things in Philadelphia. Instead of just democrats being elected you’d probably see a good bit of Greens, DSA, and maybe a socialist or two being elected.

[Thermodolia]

Because proportional representation is better.

Proportional representation is based on who lives where.

Eh not quite. But it’s a far better voting system than first past the post because it allows you to actually vote for people you agree with and not just a party that’s “well at least they aren’t as bad as the other guys”

[San Lumen]

I don’t understand how it makes any difference. Someone still lost and what’s to say your people would get the most votes?

What’s your solution then for a overwhelmingly democratic municipality? Proportional representation would change nothing in Philadelphia

Actually a PR voting system could definitely change things in Philadelphia. Instead of just democrats being elected you’d probably see a good bit of Greens, DSA, and maybe a socialist or two being elected.

It's quite possible

Proportional representation is based on who lives where.

Eh not quite. But it’s a far better voting system than first past the post because it allows you to actually vote for people you agree with and not just a party that’s “well at least they aren’t as bad as the other guys”

Why not instant runoff or ranked choice? I would support that as reform not proportional.

[Thermodolia]

Actually a PR voting system could definitely change things in Philadelphia. Instead of just democrats being elected you’d probably see a good bit of Greens, DSA, and maybe a socialist or two being elected.

It's quite possible

Eh not quite. But it’s a far better voting system than first past the post because it allows you to actually vote for people you agree with and not just a party that’s “well at least they aren’t as bad as the other guys”

Why not instant runoff or ranked choice? I would support that as reform not proportional.

Because both of those don’t get rid of Gerrymandering or other fucked up practices like single party control. You don’t want real reform because your scared that the democrats would be stripped from their power

[San Lumen]

It's quite possible

Why not instant runoff or ranked choice? I would support that as reform not proportional.

Because both of those don’t get rid of Gerrymandering or other fucked up practices like single party control. You don’t want real reform because your scared that the democrats would be stripped from their power

And in Europe proportional representation often leads to no one having a majority and being unable to form a government because no one wants to form a coalition or you get a very unstable coalition.

Plus in a two party system its not very practical. I doubt with proportional representation you'd see a sudden move towards the libertarian, green or constitution party.

Plus here in New York we have several minor parties that are a absolute joke. All they do is endorse the Democratic or Republican. They very rarely put up their own candidates. Its something called fusion voting.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because both of those don’t get rid of Gerrymandering or other fucked up practices like single party control. You don’t want real reform because your scared that the democrats would be stripped from their power

And in Europe proportional representation often leads to no one having a majority and being unable to form a government because no one wants to form a coalition or you get a very unstable coalition.

Plus in a two party system its not very practical. I doubt with proportional representation you'd see a sudden move towards the libertarian, green or constitution party.

Plus here in New York we have several minor parties that are a absolute joke. All they do is endorse the Democratic or Republican. They very rarely put up their own candidates. Its something called fusion voting.

Yeah, we often get no party with an absolute majority, but arguably that is a positive. No single party gets to implement their entire party line without opposition. In the US, there are two kinds of government: a functional one where one party controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House, or a dysfunctional gridlock with any other sort of outcome. In Europe, coalitions make sure that the executive always has the support of the legislature. And if the coalition loses that faith? Then the people get to elect a new one. Sometimes coalition governments are unstable, but when they are unstable it is usually because they have lost the faith of the electorate. Arguably, that is a good reason to call new elections. Usually, most parties are willing to form a coalition, just not with every party.

You may doubt that you'd see these parties appear, but I think they would spring up almost immediately. In the US, these would-be parties are already assembled in caucusus. As soon as you have proportional representation, the game changes. Sticking with the biggest party becomes one of the worst ways to get elected in such a system. Raising a libertarian party in such a system will happen, because it is a good winning strategy. The first person to create a green, libertarian, socialist or ultranationalistic party would be guaranteed a few seats in the new Congress.

[San Lumen]

And in Europe proportional representation often leads to no one having a majority and being unable to form a government because no one wants to form a coalition or you get a very unstable coalition.

Plus in a two party system its not very practical. I doubt with proportional representation you'd see a sudden move towards the libertarian, green or constitution party.

Plus here in New York we have several minor parties that are a absolute joke. All they do is endorse the Democratic or Republican. They very rarely put up their own candidates. Its something called fusion voting.

Yeah, we often get no party with an absolute majority, but arguably that is a positive. No single party gets to implement their entire party line without opposition. In the US, there are two kinds of government: a functional one where one party controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House, or a dysfunctional gridlock with any other sort of outcome. In Europe, coalitions make sure that the executive always has the support of the legislature. And if the coalition loses that faith? Then the people get to elect a new one. Sometimes coalition governments are unstable, but when they are unstable it is usually because they have lost the faith of the electorate. Arguably, that is a good reason to call new elections. Usually, most parties are willing to form a coalition, just not with every party.

You may doubt that you'd see these parties appear, but I think they would spring up almost immediately. In the US, these would-be parties are already assembled in caucusus. As soon as you have proportional representation, the game changes. Sticking with the biggest party becomes one of the worst ways to get elected in such a system. Raising a libertarian party in such a system will happen, because it is a good winning strategy. The first person to create a green, libertarian, socialist or ultranationalistic party would be guaranteed a few seats in the new Congress.

And with how polarized everything is in the US I cannot see the executive always having the support of the legislature. Governments would likely be brought down all the time. That's if you could ever get a coalition formed in the first.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, we often get no party with an absolute majority, but arguably that is a positive. No single party gets to implement their entire party line without opposition. In the US, there are two kinds of government: a functional one where one party controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House, or a dysfunctional gridlock with any other sort of outcome. In Europe, coalitions make sure that the executive always has the support of the legislature. And if the coalition loses that faith? Then the people get to elect a new one. Sometimes coalition governments are unstable, but when they are unstable it is usually because they have lost the faith of the electorate. Arguably, that is a good reason to call new elections. Usually, most parties are willing to form a coalition, just not with every party.

You may doubt that you'd see these parties appear, but I think they would spring up almost immediately. In the US, these would-be parties are already assembled in caucusus. As soon as you have proportional representation, the game changes. Sticking with the biggest party becomes one of the worst ways to get elected in such a system. Raising a libertarian party in such a system will happen, because it is a good winning strategy. The first person to create a green, libertarian, socialist or ultranationalistic party would be guaranteed a few seats in the new Congress.

And with how polarized everything is in the US I cannot see the executive always having the support of the legislature. Governments would likely be brought down all the time. That's if you could ever get a coalition formed in the first.

That's much more preferable to one side being able to fuck over the other at will tbh

[San Lumen]

And with how polarized everything is in the US I cannot see the executive always having the support of the legislature. Governments would likely be brought down all the time. That's if you could ever get a coalition formed in the first.

That's much more preferable to one side being able to fuck over the other at will tbh

a completely gridlocked government unable to get anything done whatsoever?

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's much more preferable to one side being able to fuck over the other at will tbh

a completely gridlocked government unable to get anything done whatsoever?

That's much more preferable to the current situation, yes.

[Chan Island]

Yeah, we often get no party with an absolute majority, but arguably that is a positive. No single party gets to implement their entire party line without opposition. In the US, there are two kinds of government: a functional one where one party controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House, or a dysfunctional gridlock with any other sort of outcome. In Europe, coalitions make sure that the executive always has the support of the legislature. And if the coalition loses that faith? Then the people get to elect a new one. Sometimes coalition governments are unstable, but when they are unstable it is usually because they have lost the faith of the electorate. Arguably, that is a good reason to call new elections. Usually, most parties are willing to form a coalition, just not with every party.

You may doubt that you'd see these parties appear, but I think they would spring up almost immediately. In the US, these would-be parties are already assembled in caucusus. As soon as you have proportional representation, the game changes. Sticking with the biggest party becomes one of the worst ways to get elected in such a system. Raising a libertarian party in such a system will happen, because it is a good winning strategy. The first person to create a green, libertarian, socialist or ultranationalistic party would be guaranteed a few seats in the new Congress.

And with how polarized everything is in the US I cannot see the executive always having the support of the legislature. Governments would likely be brought down all the time. That's if you could ever get a coalition formed in the first.

But the US is polarised in part because it is using First Past the Post. When there are literally only 2 choices, it is pathetically easy to just paint the other choice as evil monsters and you're done. Nations with PR end up being much more consensus based.

As for governments being brought down all of the time... um... isn't the US government in shutdown at the moment? and hasn't it done that multiple times in this decade? You're complaining about a problem that might occur when that selfsame horse has already bolted and run to the other side of the world as a direct result of the system you are defending.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, we often get no party with an absolute majority, but arguably that is a positive. No single party gets to implement their entire party line without opposition. In the US, there are two kinds of government: a functional one where one party controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House, or a dysfunctional gridlock with any other sort of outcome. In Europe, coalitions make sure that the executive always has the support of the legislature. And if the coalition loses that faith? Then the people get to elect a new one. Sometimes coalition governments are unstable, but when they are unstable it is usually because they have lost the faith of the electorate. Arguably, that is a good reason to call new elections. Usually, most parties are willing to form a coalition, just not with every party.

You may doubt that you'd see these parties appear, but I think they would spring up almost immediately. In the US, these would-be parties are already assembled in caucusus. As soon as you have proportional representation, the game changes. Sticking with the biggest party becomes one of the worst ways to get elected in such a system. Raising a libertarian party in such a system will happen, because it is a good winning strategy. The first person to create a green, libertarian, socialist or ultranationalistic party would be guaranteed a few seats in the new Congress.

And with how polarized everything is in the US I cannot see the executive always having the support of the legislature. Governments would likely be brought down all the time. That's if you could ever get a coalition formed in the first.

The polarisation of the US is caused in part by the two-party system. Having a proportional government would actually go a long way to have the centre work together instead of being split between two parties. Polarisation only really works with two parties. When you have a proportional system, things are no longer conservative or liberal. The extremists on both sides can get their own parties, freeing the rest of the parties of their weight. When you have a communist and a fascist party, calling slightly left-wing people communist and calling slightly right-wing people nazis will no longer hold sway, while that is the preferred tactic in modern US politics.

[Tobleste]

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

"Stubborn city folk."

Such a loaded, dumb thing to say tbh. Every vote counts equally, every American is equal in their right to cast a vote and to voice their opinion. While I hold those beliefs sacrosanct, I suppose, well, at least you're consistent. That is, at least you admit that you're not a fan of democracy.

Your reasoning against it, however, that's where I disagree vehemently.

It is better than the normal "republic not a democracy" or "what about rural minorities" idiocy. There's a weird authoritarian streak in some posters here that makes them impossible to reason with if you're someone who views democracy as a good thing.

[San Lumen]

"Stubborn city folk."

Such a loaded, dumb thing to say tbh. Every vote counts equally, every American is equal in their right to cast a vote and to voice their opinion. While I hold those beliefs sacrosanct, I suppose, well, at least you're consistent. That is, at least you admit that you're not a fan of democracy.

Your reasoning against it, however, that's where I disagree vehemently.

It is better than the normal "republic not a democracy" or "what about rural minorities" idiocy. There's a weird authoritarian streak in some posters here that makes them impossible to reason with if you're someone who views democracy as a good thing.

People like them want a system where only their side can win because its rigged in their favor. That land area matters more than actual votes

Somehow having grain elevators in their town means they should get more representation than someone who works at JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan.

[Loben]

It is better than the normal "republic not a democracy" or "what about rural minorities" idiocy. There's a weird authoritarian streak in some posters here that makes them impossible to reason with if you're someone who views democracy as a good thing.

People like them want a system where only their side can win because its rigged in their favor. That land area matters more than actual votes

Somehow having grain elevators in their town means they should get more representation than someone who works at JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan.

I mean fuck JP morgan.

[Tobleste]

It's not that democracy is flawed. Its that your views are so unpopular in the place it's being practiced that you have to shut up the majority for it to even become relevant. Which, again, makes you (and your views) the problem

It really is a profound sense of entitlement, isn't it?

I've only seen this argument from right wing Americans. I think that because the US has a two party system and strong divide between urban and rural areas, they believe they're a minority that deserves excessive power (compared to their share of the population) even if it's completely undemocratic. The fact that they usually use that power to attack actual minorities doesn't seem to register to them as a problem.

[Loben]

It really is a profound sense of entitlement, isn't it?

I've only seen this argument from right wing Americans. I think that because the US has a two party system and strong divide between urban and rural areas, they believe they're a minority that deserves excessive power (compared to their share of the population) even if it's completely undemocratic. The fact that they usually use that power to attack actual minorities doesn't seem to register to them as a problem.

Nope.

[San Lumen]

People like them want a system where only their side can win because its rigged in their favor. That land area matters more than actual votes

Somehow having grain elevators in their town means they should get more representation than someone who works at JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan.

I mean fuck JP morgan.

Chances are your money is invested at one of the big banks which have Hq's in New York and other major cities.

The clothing in your closet was likely designed in New York or San Francisco. Your computer was designed in San Francisco. I could go on and on.

Representation is based on population and nothing else. Just because you have a farm doesnt mean you get more representation than Chicago, Los Angeles or New York.

[Tobleste]

It is better than the normal "republic not a democracy" or "what about rural minorities" idiocy. There's a weird authoritarian streak in some posters here that makes them impossible to reason with if you're someone who views democracy as a good thing.

People like them want a system where only their side can win because its rigged in their favor. That land area matters more than actual votes

Somehow having grain elevators in their town means they should get more representation than someone who works at JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan.

The weirder part is that the same people often get outraged by "identity politics". Apparently actual minorities demanding fair treatment is unreasonable but they deserve a veto over the entire country because they live somewhere no-one else wants to. If the government disproportionately over-represented black voters or had a strict 50-50 gender quota, they'd re-enact the French Revolution.