51 replies to this topic

[the rebel]

lemme just say I'm glad to see you back rebel.. i know there's things we differ on, but you at least use common sense in your arguments. you see the world for what it is, and not try to play any side and are not concerned at all with being PC or getting points.. much respect.

Yeah Trump being elected reminded me of all the posts I did on here about it, so I came back. Its good to see that at least someone here is glad I'm back.

[Redezra]

 

 

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

Of course you love it, being an Aussie you was brought up with only knowing that type of voting system.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FPTP and Proportional voting systems neither is perfect.

False, we use instant runoff voting. Proportional is still a pipe dream. A pipe dream New Zealand has managed to implement.

Trust me on this one, Hybrid Proportional/Preferential is the best kind of voting system implementable.

False? Either your government electoral site is wrong or you're wrong, I'm thinking you're wrong:

Proportional representation electoral systems are used in Australia to elect candidates to the Senate, the upper houses of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, the Lower House of Tasmania, the ACT Legislative Assembly and many Local Government Councils.

http://www.ecanz.gov...s/proportional/

As for taking your word on which is better, I won't because I look at the disadvantages of it as well.

 

Yeah... problem is the house that counts, the lower house, the one that you need to secure government, is not proportional. So who cares tbh.

 

Also there aren't any disadvantages worth noting afaik.

[the rebel]

Under FPTP, MPs serve the constituency they campaign in. This makes them more inclined to tackle important local issues.


PR can potentially provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream: under a FPTP electoral system this would be unlikely to happen.


Some would say that PR produces ‘weak’ coalition governments rather than ‘strong’ majority governments, which arguably can lead to indecision, compromise and even legislative paralysis.


PR can also reduce accountability to voters, as an ousted party of government can retain office by finding new coalition partners after an election.


The adoption of PR list systems weakens the link between the elected representative and his or her constituency.


The greater complexity and choice that PR allows can put voters off voting, by requiring them to have a greater knowledge of individual and party positions.

[Redezra]

1.  There's no evidence of that happening universally in practice. I'd argue against it, safe seats get nothing from any party.
2. Extreme points of view inspire change. This allows the country to remain in touch with the views of the voting public and prevents party ossification.
3. No government should be a done deal. It should be struggle and compromise from day one. Parties in proportional rep learn that they need to chill the fuck out from time to time if they want to get things done.
4. Totally possible, however as the previous point states that forces policy changes as they are now accountable to other minor parties who have very different views and policy ideas, and will rip government out from under them if they don't compromise.
5. Once again, there's no evidence an elected representative in FPTP or IR is serving their electorate. In fact in many cases they don't as most seats are safe seats.
6. This is resolvable by compulsory voting and a better education system. If your people are not interested in politics, then the establishment has already won.

I'm seeing a lot of "problems". I'm also seeing that you've got a rather idealistic view of how politicians work. We want to build a system where people like Hillary Clinton (who I would argue is representative of most of the people in politics) have to struggle the entire time to get shit done, but still are able to get shit done. We want an environment that rolls people that won't compromise into the dust, and rewards those that do. We also want an environment where the party layout forces every government to work with multiple parties, and thus reduces their cumulative ideological impact for a far more pragmatic governance.

 

tl;dr: I want a government where people can't use it as a soap box, and actually try to get shit done.

[Justavictim82]

 

The Founding Fathers never had any intention for this (US) country to be ruled by the simple majority.  Their fear of mob rule was justified one year after the ratification of our Constitution by the French Revolution.  Demagogues there whipped their illiterate masses in to frenzies to decapitate (literally) their opponents.

 

Members of the US Senate were appointed by the states and the general public voted for electors who would chose the President.  Both of these processes were circuit breakers to moderate popular passions.  We naively scrapped one of these and are debating the elimination of the other.

 

We also elected the VP as the runner up for Presidency. It is time for the Electoral College to go. It serves no purpose anymore other to placate states rights. Why should I feel my Republican vote in Massachusetts or my Democrat vote in Nebraska mean jack shit? Popular vote would likely increase turnout significantly. When 46% of the qualifying adult populace does not turn out to vote for any candidate you have a problem.  

With the popular vote, your vote in Wisconsin, Rhode Island or Vermont would mean jack shit, candidates would only campaign and focus on high population states.  The electoral college is far from perfect, but the popular vote ain't better. 

Not necessarily true. They still need the votes and 53% of the population did not vote for whatever reason. If they felt their vote in Wisconsin, Rhode Island, or Vermont meant a damn then they would be more inclined to do. Electing someone the president of the country who only received 1/4 of the eligible voters is fucking sad   

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In a popular-vote system, candidates would concentrate on areas where their support is strong, so as to maximize GOTV efforts. But it would also pay for them to campaign in other places. Consider: under the current system there is no reason for a Republican to campaign in California, or a Democrat in Texas, because even if they did very well and received, say, 45% of the vote, it would all be for naught. That 45% would be a total waste. Not so with a popular vote.

 

Traditionally, urban areas tend to be more progressive, rural areas more conservative. If you're trying to get out your base, it's probably easier if most of them are clustered in a few small geographic areas, which gives at least a theoretical advantage to progressives in a popular-vote system. All other things being equal, that is probably true. But the United States is a big country with a complex electorate. Switching to a popular vote would definitely make things different, but politics would quickly adapt. I don't think any one ideology would be unduly affected.

 

With the popular vote, your vote in Wisconsin, Rhode Island or Vermont would mean jack shit, candidates would only campaign and focus on high population states.

 

No, with a popular vote, your vote in Wisconsin, Rhode Island, or Vermont would mean exactly the same thing as a vote in Los Angeles or New York. One citizen, one vote. Under the current system votes in some states or counties count more than others. 

 

And candidates wouldn't necessarily limit their focus to high-population states. But even if they did, so what? As it stands they limit their focus to a handful of swing states.

 

The bottom line is that the only way to ensure that every vote counts, and counts equally, is a national popular vote. The electoral college is an anachronism.

[the rebel]

I'd be curious what the result would of been if the electoral college votes were split based on percentage of vote rather than a winner takes all system.

[Haflinger]

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Um... yes. They have this thing called "money" and in America you need a lot of "money" to get into these things called "good schools", generally in the form of higher end institutions. To believe otherwise would be willfully ignorant.

The difference between the "good" schools and the others is strictly the amount of money required to get through the door. Nobody cares whether a Harvard grad got an education while there, they just care about social status.

 

Once again, being literate tended to mean you had this thing called money

No, it did not.

In the early days of the Republic, most of the people who were literate had become so thanks to religious instruction. There was a huge focus in the Puritans and several of the other Protestant sects on being able to read the Bible, and that's how a lot of people learned to read.

Now, it did mean you weren't a slave, but it certainly didn't mean you were well-off. And there were plenty of very wealthy ranchers and the like who did not know how to read. They were still politically important.

 

This is precisely the same way western politics works today. Rich, successful, smart sounding people rank way above intelligent but meager and simple sounding folk.

We are now a technocracy. In order to amass the money required to make oneself politically relevant, one has to buy into the current economic system. But 18th century America was not a technocracy, and there were plenty of illiterate rich people.

 

Yes. This precisely. It's a proportionality system. A reaaaaaaaaaaaal simple one based on land.

You can't have a proportionality system which only elects one person. Otherwise we'd have a hundred Presidents, and forty-some of them would be Democrats and fifty-some Republicans.

[Redezra]

 

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Um... yes. They have this thing called "money" and in America you need a lot of "money" to get into these things called "good schools", generally in the form of higher end institutions. To believe otherwise would be willfully ignorant.

The difference between the "good" schools and the others is strictly the amount of money required to get through the door. Nobody cares whether a Harvard grad got an education while there, they just care about social status.

 

That's semantics. The system is designed to offer richer people better educations. Whether or not that happens is irrelevant, they are exposed to greater knowledge and that changes their views.

 

Once again, being literate tended to mean you had this thing called money

No, it did not.

In the early days of the Republic, most of the people who were literate had become so thanks to religious instruction. There was a huge focus in the Puritans and several of the other Protestant sects on being able to read the Bible, and that's how a lot of people learned to read.

Now, it did mean you weren't a slave, but it certainly didn't mean you were well-off. And there were plenty of very wealthy ranchers and the like who did not know how to read. They were still politically important.

 

I won't believe that without evidence. Rich people could pay the church to become literate. Poor people had to do it on charity.

 

This is precisely the same way western politics works today. Rich, successful, smart sounding people rank way above intelligent but meager and simple sounding folk.

We are now a technocracy. In order to amass the money required to make oneself politically relevant, one has to buy into the current economic system. But 18th century America was not a technocracy, and there were plenty of illiterate rich people.

 

No you're an oligarchy darling. Technocracy presumes that experts in fields make decisions for those fields. That's not what is happening.

 

Yes. This precisely. It's a proportionality system. A reaaaaaaaaaaaal simple one based on land.

You can't have a proportionality system which only elects one person. Otherwise we'd have a hundred Presidents, and forty-some of them would be Democrats and fifty-some Republicans.

 

Except you don't. You have a system that elects many people who then elect one person.

[Haflinger]

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Um... yes. They have this thing called "money" and in America you need a lot of "money" to get into these things called "good schools", generally in the form of higher end institutions. To believe otherwise would be willfully ignorant.

The difference between the "good" schools and the others is strictly the amount of money required to get through the door. Nobody cares whether a Harvard grad got an education while there, they just care about social status.

That's semantics. The system is designed to offer richer people better educations. Whether or not that happens is irrelevant, they are exposed to greater knowledge and that changes their views.

They're exposed to more knowledge than most inner-city kids. But it's not as black and white as you think; the education system has become pretty broken, and you're now likely to get a better education somewhere like UC than any of the Ivy League schools.

Still have to pay a lot more to get into the ivies though.

Once again, being literate tended to mean you had this thing called money

No, it did not.

In the early days of the Republic, most of the people who were literate had become so thanks to religious instruction. There was a huge focus in the Puritans and several of the other Protestant sects on being able to read the Bible, and that's how a lot of people learned to read.

Now, it did mean you weren't a slave, but it certainly didn't mean you were well-off. And there were plenty of very wealthy ranchers and the like who did not know how to read. They were still politically important.

I won't believe that without evidence. Rich people could pay the church to become literate. Poor people had to do it on charity.

You need to read some more about the various dissenting religions that were really important in early America, especially in the areas that became centres of education like Massachusetts. The big mainstream church-based education that you're thinking of was all happening in Europe; local American education was mostly done by Puritans, Presbyterians and their ilk.

 

This is precisely the same way western politics works today. Rich, successful, smart sounding people rank way above intelligent but meager and simple sounding folk.

We are now a technocracy. In order to amass the money required to make oneself politically relevant, one has to buy into the current economic system. But 18th century America was not a technocracy, and there were plenty of illiterate rich people.

No you're an oligarchy darling. Technocracy presumes that experts in fields make decisions for those fields. That's not what is happening.

Technocracy presumes that people certified as experts are put in charge. That is what is happening.

BTW, Australia is the same in this. Here we're talking Western culture.

 

Yes. This precisely. It's a proportionality system. A reaaaaaaaaaaaal simple one based on land.

You can't have a proportionality system which only elects one person. Otherwise we'd have a hundred Presidents, and forty-some of them would be Democrats and fifty-some Republicans.

Except you don't. You have a system that elects many people who then elect one person.

I apparently need to remind you again that I'm not an American. This isn't my system either.

The goal of proportional representation is to produce a government which represents the people directly. If 40% of the people believe one thing, then 40% of the government does too. It's a logical impossibility when you're only electing one person into government.

The only purpose of the Electoral College is the election of the president. They have a strict constitutional ability. Essentially, they are similar to the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. But they are not the government.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Electors in the Holy Roman Empire were usually hereditary, and often had other lands and titles associated with them. They also continued to influence policy after the election was over. They were typically people of great wealth and power.

 

US electors are usually party activists, the people who stand out in the rain holding signs, cold call voters, go door to door, etc. Sometimes they are former office holders or other local party notables.

 

There are certainly a lot of parallels, especially in their primary function. But perhaps the most telling thing is that in both cases they are people heavily invested in the system. That is why I think it so unlikely that the Electoral College will change the outcome of the election.

[Redezra]

 

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Um... yes. They have this thing called "money" and in America you need a lot of "money" to get into these things called "good schools", generally in the form of higher end institutions. To believe otherwise would be willfully ignorant.

The difference between the "good" schools and the others is strictly the amount of money required to get through the door. Nobody cares whether a Harvard grad got an education while there, they just care about social status.

That's semantics. The system is designed to offer richer people better educations. Whether or not that happens is irrelevant, they are exposed to greater knowledge and that changes their views.

They're exposed to more knowledge than most inner-city kids. But it's not as black and white as you think; the education system has become pretty broken, and you're now likely to get a better education somewhere like UC than any of the Ivy League schools.

Still have to pay a lot more to get into the ivies though.

Again, that's irrelevant. It's the intended idea that's important.

 

Once again, being literate tended to mean you had this thing called money

No, it did not.

In the early days of the Republic, most of the people who were literate had become so thanks to religious instruction. There was a huge focus in the Puritans and several of the other Protestant sects on being able to read the Bible, and that's how a lot of people learned to read.

Now, it did mean you weren't a slave, but it certainly didn't mean you were well-off. And there were plenty of very wealthy ranchers and the like who did not know how to read. They were still politically important.

I won't believe that without evidence. Rich people could pay the church to become literate. Poor people had to do it on charity.

You need to read some more about the various dissenting religions that were really important in early America, especially in the areas that became centres of education like Massachusetts. The big mainstream church-based education that you're thinking of was all happening in Europe; local American education was mostly done by Puritans, Presbyterians and their ilk.

Which is probably where the US went to hell in the first place.

 

 

This is precisely the same way western politics works today. Rich, successful, smart sounding people rank way above intelligent but meager and simple sounding folk.

We are now a technocracy. In order to amass the money required to make oneself politically relevant, one has to buy into the current economic system. But 18th century America was not a technocracy, and there were plenty of illiterate rich people.

No you're an oligarchy darling. Technocracy presumes that experts in fields make decisions for those fields. That's not what is happening.

Technocracy presumes that people certified as experts are put in charge. That is what is happening.

BTW, Australia is the same in this. Here we're talking Western culture.

 

No, no, no. We do not have Technocracies. If we did, things would be arguably better. These people aren't experts in shit. We want them to be experts. What we have are rich people. Everywhere is some level of oligarchy in the anglosphere.

 

 

Yes. This precisely. It's a proportionality system. A reaaaaaaaaaaaal simple one based on land.

You can't have a proportionality system which only elects one person. Otherwise we'd have a hundred Presidents, and forty-some of them would be Democrats and fifty-some Republicans.

Except you don't. You have a system that elects many people who then elect one person.

I apparently need to remind you again that I'm not an American. This isn't my system either.

The goal of proportional representation is to produce a government which represents the people directly. If 40% of the people believe one thing, then 40% of the government does too. It's a logical impossibility when you're only electing one person into government.

The only purpose of the Electoral College is the election of the president. They have a strict constitutional ability. Essentially, they are similar to the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. But they are not the government.

 

Yuhduh. Why did you think I said "It was a really bad attempt at it". They wanted to make sure that states had a say based on their population proportion. But they also wanted a president elected by the people. Thus, the College.