by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
by New England and The Maritimes » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:17 pm
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Fartsniffage » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:19 pm
New England and The Maritimes wrote:We don't need bandaids. We need to change the way we view government. All a proportional representation would do is allow a third party to rise as a kingmaker and make politics even more tedious and impossible. Once, as people, we stop electing asshats who shirk the duties of their office, our problems in this venue will be solved.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:19 pm
by Pope Joan » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:21 pm
New England and The Maritimes wrote:We don't need bandaids. We need to change the way we view government. All a proportional representation would do is allow a third party to rise as a kingmaker and make politics even more tedious and impossible. Once, as people, we stop electing asshats who shirk the duties of their office, our problems in this venue will be solved.
by Fartsniffage » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:21 pm
Alyakia wrote:The nightmare scenario where a party only gets 40% of the vote and needs to form a coalition is, well, a nightmare. I much prefer FPTP in my country where currently parties usually win with 36% of the vote and still have a majority. It's farier and more democratic.
by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:23 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Alyakia wrote:The nightmare scenario where a party only gets 40% of the vote and needs to form a coalition is, well, a nightmare. I much prefer FPTP in my country where currently parties usually win with 36% of the vote and still have a majority. It's farier and more democratic.
How is it more democratic? Last election I voted for a candidate that didn't win, my voice is being ignored for 5 years now.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Alyakia wrote:The nightmare scenario where a party only gets 40% of the vote and needs to form a coalition is, well, a nightmare. I much prefer FPTP in my country where currently parties usually win with 36% of the vote and still have a majority. It's farier and more democratic.
How is it more democratic? Last election I voted for a candidate that didn't win, my voice is being ignored for 5 years now.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:26 pm
Good Old Money wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
How is it more democratic? Last election I voted for a candidate that didn't win, my voice is being ignored for 5 years now.
I don't know that PR is democratic either, because it sometimes does not allow the majority to rule, which is exactly what a democracy is, purely.
by Fartsniffage » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:28 pm
Good Old Money wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
How is it more democratic? Last election I voted for a candidate that didn't win, my voice is being ignored for 5 years now.
I don't know that PR is democratic either, because it sometimes does not allow the majority to rule, which is exactly what a democracy is, purely.
by New England and The Maritimes » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:28 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:New England and The Maritimes wrote:We don't need bandaids. We need to change the way we view government. All a proportional representation would do is allow a third party to rise as a kingmaker and make politics even more tedious and impossible. Once, as people, we stop electing asshats who shirk the duties of their office, our problems in this venue will be solved.
How should that change be made? How should we view government and what changes to the electoral process should be made?
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:30 pm
Alyakia wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
How is it more democratic? Last election I voted for a candidate that didn't win, my voice is being ignored for 5 years now.
Because otherwise the LOSER would determine the outcome of the election. And people would vote four times. Or something. I've forgotten all the terrible arguments people like to use.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Adm ... gn-005.jpg
Fartsniffage wrote:Good Old Money wrote:
I don't know that PR is democratic either, because it sometimes does not allow the majority to rule, which is exactly what a democracy is, purely.
Ummm...if a majority votes for a party then they would have proportionally the most votes and would rule. It's when there isn't a majority that it gets interesting.
by Quelesh » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:32 pm
by NewLakotah » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:33 pm
by The Willing » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:34 pm
Pope Joan wrote:New England and The Maritimes wrote:We don't need bandaids. We need to change the way we view government. All a proportional representation would do is allow a third party to rise as a kingmaker and make politics even more tedious and impossible. Once, as people, we stop electing asshats who shirk the duties of their office, our problems in this venue will be solved.
I think third parties are fun.
If we have enough parties, the fat cats won't know for sure where to spend theirbribescampaign contributions.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:34 pm
I am defining majority as a plurality, or the party with the most supporters
not necessarily more than 50%.
[/quote]However, many parties are similar in thought, but one radical party can change an entire election with 20% of the vote.
by Trotskylvania » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:35 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:35 pm
NewLakotah wrote:Personally, I don't think a PR is the right choice to America. First of all, if we consider America, we elect each Rep and Senator individually and I think that is the best way to do that. Secondly, PR hasn't shown its foolproof yet, and when dealing with politicans, your gonna need a great plan to get it to work.
by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:36 pm
Quelesh wrote:I wouldn't oppose proportional representation, but my preference at this time is for instant runoff (preferential) voting in single-seat (or possibly multi-seat) constituencies. I don't think my country (the United States) is ever going to implement proportional representation, at least not for a very long time, but I think at least certain states can be convinced to implement instant runoff voting, and it would be a dramatic improvement.
by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Alyakia wrote:I am defining majority as a plurality, or the party with the most supporters
Supporters, as in votes?not necessarily more than 50%.
So more people didn't vote for than people that did? Sounds great.However, many parties are similar in thought, but one radical party can change an entire election with 20% of the vote.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:PR only works with parliamentary government.
by Alyakia » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:43 pm
Good Old Money wrote:
Yes, most voters, and it could definitely end with the winner not gaining more than 50% of the vote.
And I don't know Britain's specifics, but even without PR, this can happen in a multiparty system, with more than 2 major parties.
by Quelesh » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:51 pm
Good Old Money wrote:Quelesh wrote:I wouldn't oppose proportional representation, but my preference at this time is for instant runoff (preferential) voting in single-seat (or possibly multi-seat) constituencies. I don't think my country (the United States) is ever going to implement proportional representation, at least not for a very long time, but I think at least certain states can be convinced to implement instant runoff voting, and it would be a dramatic improvement.
I like instant runoff in most cases, it's a good idea, although in the United States and its two-party system, one candidate will almost always get a majority.
And I think the US will never implement PR because there is no viable third or fourth party. The Libertarians or Greens? They are very isolated, and probably not ready or strong enough to have Congressional representation. And they only represent a very small fraction of the population.
The Republicans and Democrats would still get most of the seats.
by Good Old Money » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:57 pm
Quelesh wrote:Good Old Money wrote:
I like instant runoff in most cases, it's a good idea, although in the United States and its two-party system, one candidate will almost always get a majority.
And I think the US will never implement PR because there is no viable third or fourth party. The Libertarians or Greens? They are very isolated, and probably not ready or strong enough to have Congressional representation. And they only represent a very small fraction of the population.
The Republicans and Democrats would still get most of the seats.
The current strength of the Republican and Democratic parties is the main reason why I support
instant runoff voting. A lot of people don't vote for third party candidates not because they don't agree with the candidates' positions but because they're afraid that their vote will be "wasted." People know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have any realistic chance of winning an election, so they vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the candidate they genuinely prefer.
Remember how a lot of Democrats were angry at Ralph Nader in 2000, saying that he helped Bush win by drawing votes away from Gore? That wouldn't happen with instant runoff. Nader would have gotten a significantly higher percentage of the votes than he actually got in 2000 because he'd get the votes of a lot of people who would have voted for him in 2000 were it not for the "wasted vote" / helping Bush win effect. Most Nader voters would have had Gore as their second choice, so most of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore anyway in states where Nader is eliminated due to no one getting a majority in the first round.
I think we would see third party support (in the form of vote totals) increase significantly. Not overly dramatically, not overnight, but they'd start getting more votes, and we'd probably have at least a handful of Green and/or Libertarian Party members in Congress (maybe Socialist Party USA in a couple districts). Instant runoff voting would help create viable third parties, in my opinion.
by The Andromeda Islands » Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jetan, Singaporen Empire, Tiami
Advertisement