What context?
It gives states with lower population levels *cough*republican*cough* a higher percentage of representation in the electoral college ...
(edit typo)
What context?
It gives states with lower population levels *cough*republican*cough* a higher percentage of representation in the electoral college ...
(edit typo)
Originally posted by: dtyn
Originally posted by: myusername
And here I thought that the first response by czar was adequately descriptive of SMDP ...
then you suggest a condition *prior* to any elections ...
Thought maybe you were going to say because the parties formed in a socioeconomic structure that had no middle class to speak of, resulting in a manichean view of politics.
Where would we all be without google
Um, I was waiting for the key word "Durverger" or "single party district perpetuate two party dominance," not "the lesser of two evils." Google wouldn't help you on this question.
Yes, it helps perpetuate it, but it is not the only thing that causes it. Germany and France both have a single member district system in addition to a PR system for the lower houses of Parliament.(upper houses are not directly elected)
Because obviously states with small populations shouldn't count right? Nice to know some people *cough* Democrats *cough* are for equal representation and rights.
So what's your point? That I am right? That people think the small states should only count if they support THEIR party?
Originally posted by: Mill
So what's your point? That I am right? That people think the small states should only count if they support THEIR party?
Some may think so, I personally think the electoral numbers should stay, but we should fix how the electoral votes are distributed. It would be nice to see the votes be distributed according the the percentage of the popular vote.(get rid of the all or none system)
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Mill
So what's your point? That I am right? That people think the small states should only count if they support THEIR party?
Some may think so, I personally think the electoral numbers should stay, but we should fix how the electoral votes are distributed. It would be nice to see the votes be distributed according the the percentage of the popular vote.(get rid of the all or none system)
They are already distributed by population of the state. If they started giving up delegate votes by % of the % someone received in a state, you would end up with candidates focusing mainly on the largest states.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,323
- 12,835
- 136
We in Canada use basically the same system as England (duh), but we started with 4 parties back in the day (Parti Rouge, Parti Bleu, Liberals and Conservatives). Eventually the parties megered a bit. In the 1940's we became a 4 party system again with Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit and Canadian Commonwealth Confederation. The last 2 merged to become the New Democratic Party in the late 50's. So now we are officially a 3 party system. However, being a Parlimentary system makes us very different from the Americans. It has its advantages and disadvantages though. Minority governments happen occasionally and this can force a non-confidence vote is the Commons forcing a new election. But minority governments are real democracy in action because evry party must agree in order to get any work done.Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: dtyn
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well Duverger certainly agrees. And that's good enough for me
AHHHH!!!!!! Good for you!
Duverger predicted that single member districs will invariably perpetuate two party dominance.
England uses single-member districts and has growing third parties, although they are mostly nationalist parties in Scotland, Ulster and Wales.(mostly in Scotland)
Germany and France have a mixed system though.
Duverger law is nothing but theory.
England, which runs a SMDP, has three major political parties, the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats.
Also proven wrong with such countries as Canada and India.
England, which runs a SMDP, has three major political parties, the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats.
Also proven wrong with such countries as Canada and India.
I'm guessing that the U.S. political system is setup such that there are only two extremes on the political spectrum. Any third party must take the middle-of-the-road approach. All it takes is for the other two parties to shift over a bit and take off large chunks of the third party's influence. Once that happens, the motr party finds itself withering away into nothing.
I as an outsider would say it has to do with the fact that you vote for individuals (in presidential elections as well as the representatives, Senat too I think) and with the fact: winner takes all. It is not like here when : SPD: 36%; CDU 38%; Greens 15%; FDP 6%; others remainder (arbitrary constallations choosen) that will be the constallation of the chamber that was voted for (i.e. Bundestag = House of reps)
As far as I know you dont vote for parties. Which results in not having (party)coalitions in your Congress. Since you vote for individuals, these indviduals probably do not adhere as strongly to party politics. Which means that to get a yes or no for something the individuals have to be convinced rather than having a party line and mostly the whole party fraction votes the same. If you now had more than two parties things would get messy. The candidates would have a hard time getting the media attention and seperating from each other.
Here the samller parties usually have some specialties that they stand for which may or may not fit for a governing coalition that achieves a majority....
Dunno if that can be understood I guess I do not speak very clear
As far as I know you dont vote for parties. Which results in not having (party)coalitions in your Congress. Since you vote for individuals, these indviduals probably do not adhere as strongly to party politics. Which means that to get a yes or no for something the individuals have to be convinced rather than having a party line and mostly the whole party fraction votes the same. If you now had more than two parties things would get messy. The candidates would have a hard time getting the media attention and seperating from each other.
Here the samller parties usually have some specialties that they stand for which may or may not fit for a governing coalition that achieves a majority....
Dunno if that can be understood I guess I do not speak very clear
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Mill
So what's your point? That I am right? That people think the small states should only count if they support THEIR party?
Some may think so, I personally think the electoral numbers should stay, but we should fix how the electoral votes are distributed. It would be nice to see the votes be distributed according the the percentage of the popular vote.(get rid of the all or none system)
Because of that it is only a one party system. You own the Electoral College, you own the Vote.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Neither Republicans or Democrats wrote the Constitution.
As far as the OP goes, political law is nice and all that, but if you want to boil it down, when an issue comes up and a solution proposed people will be either for it or against it. Two possibilities, since the "I don't really pay much attention to things" party never did much.
So if you have two parties which become philosophically aligned, Darwinism finishes off the weaker. That leaves two parties. Once established, the supporters will back no matter what, as witnessed here.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I think that effectively it is, and I believe that is what the OP meant. The primary function of a third party these days is to influence the major parties in the form of a protest movement. Perot for example. He never really had a chance, however his presence influenced the political landscape, although it did not overturn it.
When discussing what kind of party system a nation is, you are usually speaking about how many are in power. In the US most elected positions, federal anyways, are filled by either Democrats or Republicans. I think there is only 1 independent currently in Congress.(I also believe he started out registered to one part, but then decided to drop out)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter