2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or virtual districts, with no map at all. People would choose which "district" they're in by the candidate they want to vote for, with preference voting in case their favorite doesn't make it. A candidate who gets the minimum would be elected but only have a weak vote, while candidates with more support from voters would have a stronger vote in the House. Individual members with more popular support would be more powerful there, which makes more sense to me than voters having to choose the lesser of two evils every time.

Of course it's impossible. Representatives all have equal voting power in the House.

Or just go proportional voting for each state. Then you'll have list politicians and no need for districts (unless you do MMP).

But every elected member has an equally powerful vote. I think that's a bad idea that should go: not every one of them has equal popularity, in fact without putting it to a vote, all we know is that each one is more popular than the loser they ran against.

Also, people who don't vote aren't represented and we should stop pretending they are!

[Outer Sparta]

Or just go proportional voting for each state. Then you'll have list politicians and no need for districts (unless you do MMP).

But every elected member has an equally powerful vote. I think that's a bad idea that should go: not every one of them has equal popularity, in fact without putting it to a vote, all we know is that each one is more popular than the loser they ran against.

Also, people who don't vote aren't represented and we should stop pretending they are!

It's an intriguing idea of an alternate system in American politics, but of course it will never be implemented.

[Shrillland]

In another look at our occasionally recurring series "Candidate Curiosities," an independent running for Congress in Florida's district of Palm Beach-Port St. Lucie is that Beyonce is actually a white, Italian Satanist: https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-candidate-claims-beyonce-not-111812227.html

You can't make these people up, no matter how hard you wish they were ficticious.

[Kowani]

In another look at our occasionally recurring series "Candidate Curiosities," an independent running for Congress in Florida's district of Palm Beach-Port St. Lucie is that Beyonce is actually a white, Italian Satanist: https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-candidate-claims-beyonce-not-111812227.html

You can't make these people up, no matter how hard you wish they were ficticious.

...There are no words for this kind of nonsense.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

In another look at our occasionally recurring series "Candidate Curiosities," an independent running for Congress in Florida's district of Palm Beach-Port St. Lucie is that Beyonce is actually a white, Italian Satanist: https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-candidate-claims-beyonce-not-111812227.html

You can't make these people up, no matter how hard you wish they were ficticious.

...There are no words for this kind of nonsense.

"Trump is pushing a vaccine" was what I found most funny. Got his QAnon mixed up with his Anti-Vax.

[The Huskar Social Union]

In another look at our occasionally recurring series "Candidate Curiosities," an independent running for Congress in Florida's district of Palm Beach-Port St. Lucie is that Beyonce is actually a white, Italian Satanist: https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-candidate-claims-beyonce-not-111812227.html

You can't make these people up, no matter how hard you wish they were ficticious.

Can we just reset florida?

[San Lumen]

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/07/07/dem ... he-ballot/

Democrats are calling on two Republican nominees to be denied ballot access in Virginia. Bob Good in the fifth and Nick Freitas in the seventh. Both failed to file proper paperwork.

“Granting the Requests at this late date would send a clear message to future candidates and the voting public: deadlines for submitting documentation to obtain access to the ballot in Virginia are meaningless,” lawyers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — the campaign arm of House Democrats — wrote to the Virginia State Board of Elections in a letter”

The board of elections is scheduled to meet today to consider the candidates request. If they fail to get on the ballot they can run as write in candidates.

[Aureumterra]

Or just go proportional voting for each state. Then you'll have list politicians and no need for districts (unless you do MMP).

But every elected member has an equally powerful vote. I think that's a bad idea that should go: not every one of them has equal popularity, in fact without putting it to a vote, all we know is that each one is more popular than the loser they ran against.

Also, people who don't vote aren't represented and we should stop pretending they are!

A weak vote? Strong vote? What?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

But every elected member has an equally powerful vote. I think that's a bad idea that should go: not every one of them has equal popularity, in fact without putting it to a vote, all we know is that each one is more popular than the loser they ran against.

Also, people who don't vote aren't represented and we should stop pretending they are!

A weak vote? Strong vote? What?

The more voters gave their vote to you personally, the more voting power you have in the House.

I'm thinking up the number of districts assigned to a state. If that's five, and just one representative got so much of the vote that no other candidate in the state got the minimum required, the ONE elected would have 5 votes in the House. (Simplified)

That's extreme of course, that candidate would have to be very popular with voters to achieve it and it would probably never happen, but I know you'll find the worst case scenario for yourself ... so there it is.

[San Lumen]

A weak vote? Strong vote? What?

The more voters gave their vote to you personally, the more voting power you have in the House.

I'm thinking up the number of districts assigned to a state. If that's five, and just one representative got so much of the vote that no other candidate in the state got the minimum required, the ONE elected would have 5 votes in the House. (Simplified)

That's extreme of course, that candidate would have to be very popular with voters to achieve it and it would probably never happen, but I know you'll find the worst case scenario for yourself ... so there it is.

That is a terrible idea. Its similar in a way to going back to pre Reynolds v Sims. Your zip code would determine how much power you have.

[Asle Leopolka]

I'm still very much on the fence about the EC. On the one hand, I get the hate of ignoring the popular vote. On the other hand, it's really not fair to have two or three small parts of the country overwhelmingly decide the ruling party. The US needs to go into either a Borda Count system, a parliamentary system, or some hybrid of the two, IMHO.

Two or three small parts of the country don’t decide the ruling party. The top 19 largest cities do though.

It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mix voting systems with systems of government

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

[Cisairse]

Two or three small parts of the country don’t decide the ruling party. The top 19 largest cities do though.

It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mix voting systems with systems of government

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

A parliamentary system where we still vote via FPTP SMDs would absolutely not eradicate the two-party system.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

A parliamentary system where we still vote via FPTP SMDs would absolutely not eradicate the two-party system.

A parliamentary system doesn't need to be FPTP. Australia has a parliamentary system, yes with single member districts and of course the strong bias towards two-party which comes with SMD. It does not however use first-past-the-post. It uses preference voting. And that weakens the two-party system a bit. Hopefully more in the future.

[Cisairse]

A parliamentary system where we still vote via FPTP SMDs would absolutely not eradicate the two-party system.

A parliamentary system doesn't need to be FPTP. Australia has a parliamentary system, yes with single member districts and of course the strong bias towards two-party which comes with SMD. It does not however use first-past-the-post. It uses preference voting. And that weakens the two-party system a bit. Hopefully more in the future.

I agree. However, just switching to a parliamentary system without getting rid of FPTP will not end the two-party system, which was my point.

[San Lumen]

A parliamentary system where we still vote via FPTP SMDs would absolutely not eradicate the two-party system.

A parliamentary system doesn't need to be FPTP. Australia has a parliamentary system, yes with single member districts and of course the strong bias towards two-party which comes with SMD. It does not however use first-past-the-post. It uses preference voting. And that weakens the two-party system a bit. Hopefully more in the future.

i think MMP is the best system. It satisfies those who want proportional representation and those who want districts

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The more voters gave their vote to you personally, the more voting power you have in the House.

I'm thinking up the number of districts assigned to a state. If that's five, and just one representative got so much of the vote that no other candidate in the state got the minimum required, the ONE elected would have 5 votes in the House. (Simplified)

That's extreme of course, that candidate would have to be very popular with voters to achieve it and it would probably never happen, but I know you'll find the worst case scenario for yourself ... so there it is.

That is a terrible idea. Its similar in a way to going back to pre Reynolds v Sims. Your zip code would determine how much power you have.

I replied to Aureumterra because it seemed they had read all the posts laying out the idea, also they were not outright dismissive.

You however do not grasp the fundamental idea of no electoral map. States would still be assigned a number of "representatives" based on census population (not going into how I would increase that number) and could still elect that number of representatives IF there are that number of roughly-equal candidates. Suppose it's five: 12% of the vote, 14% 16%, 28%, 28% and never mind smaller candidates who aren't going to make it. All five of those would be elected to the House, but once they got there two of them would have equal voting power (28%, let's say 0.28 House votes) while the least of them would have less than half the voting power (0.12 House votes)

Now say the least of them was a Libertarian. Why would you want them to have equal House voting power, when they represent fewer voters? It's fair, and Libertarian voters who without my system would certainly prefer it to no representation at all

Now suppose the Libertarian having got a foothold, does well in the House. More voters go for them next time and they personally get more power. Don't you see this method of rewarding individual members who please their state, better than the usual choice of two lesser evils in your district?

[Outer Sparta]

Two or three small parts of the country don’t decide the ruling party. The top 19 largest cities do though.

It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mix voting systems with systems of government

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

Not really. The UK is still more or less a two-party system with the Tories and Labour both accounting for a vast majority of seats. Australia has a two-party preferred system which amounts to instant runoff voting.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A parliamentary system doesn't need to be FPTP. Australia has a parliamentary system, yes with single member districts and of course the strong bias towards two-party which comes with SMD. It does not however use first-past-the-post. It uses preference voting. And that weakens the two-party system a bit. Hopefully more in the future.

i think MMP is the best system. It satisfies those who want proportional representation and those who want districts

I have an idea for "virtual districts" but I haven't finished thinking it through. I like MMP too.

[San Lumen]

i think MMP is the best system. It satisfies those who want proportional representation and those who want districts

I have an idea for "virtual districts" but I haven't finished thinking it through. I like MMP too.

I think its the best way to satisfy both sides as they both get what they want

[Outer Sparta]

A parliamentary system doesn't need to be FPTP. Australia has a parliamentary system, yes with single member districts and of course the strong bias towards two-party which comes with SMD. It does not however use first-past-the-post. It uses preference voting. And that weakens the two-party system a bit. Hopefully more in the future.

i think MMP is the best system. It satisfies those who want proportional representation and those who want districts

If that system were to be implemented I prefer it to be a 50/50 split between district seats and list seats. That would mean having all states double their house delegation.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

Not really. The UK is still more or less a two-party system with the Tories and Labour both accounting for a vast majority of seats. Australia has a two-party preferred system which amounts to instant runoff voting.

Until recently I thought the Liberal Democrats were a new party, actually they go back to 1972 (I think).

Which is a bit depressing really. They didn't have the momentum I thought they had. Being in a coalition government was probably the high point of their arc. They didn't get much from it, while being blamed for Tory policies, and I think the same thing would happen to any third party that got to that level of representation in the US Congress.

How the LibDems happened at all, when Parliament is elected basically the same way as the US House, is an interesting question. Are British voters different? Or is it some subtle difference in the systems? Or is it the large state substructure of the US causing 2 party at every level?

[Gormwood]

Now the Lincoln Project is going with psychological warfare

[No State Here]

A Parliamentary system would eradicate the two-party system and provide more choice, so the two are intertwined.

Not really. The UK is still more or less a two-party system with the Tories and Labour both accounting for a vast majority of seats. Australia has a two-party preferred system which amounts to instant runoff voting.

The UK and US are very different places, and it’s hard to make an accurate comparison between the two. Canada actually is much more similar, but then again they have the whole Quebec deal. What I’m trying to say is the US is a unique country and can’t be accurately compared with other countries when discussing potential political system.

Also no election system can be worse than the French presidential one

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Also no election system can be worse than the French presidential one

Runoff elections, where usually voters have to go to the polls twice. Maybe more.

It's just plain unnecessary. INSTANT runoff serves the same purpose, but voters only need to go to the polls once.

Even the French system though, gives voters more than two candidates to choose between. The candidates are only weakly associated with parties, too: once elected they get up a coalition in the Parliament (unless there's an outright majority party already) and this weakens the link. They can't campaign just for one party, because they might need other parties once in power.

Actually, what don't you like about it?

[The Alma Mater]

Not really. The UK is still more or less a two-party system with the Tories and Labour both accounting for a vast majority of seats. Australia has a two-party preferred system which amounts to instant runoff voting.

The UK and US are very different places, and it’s hard to make an accurate comparison between the two. Canada actually is much more similar, but then again they have the whole Quebec deal. What I’m trying to say is the US is a unique country and can’t be accurately compared with other countries when discussing potential political system.

Also no election system can be worse than the French presidential one

Have you checked the system for electing a new Pope ?