Would you support a proportional electoral system in the US?

[Infohawk]

Of course it's not going to happen anytime soon, but would you be in favor of it? A proportional system would have you voting for parties instead of candidates. If your party only got 10% of the vote across the country, that party would be guaranteed 10% of the seats in Congress. The common objection to it is that it creates Italian-like systems where you need a coalition to govern and "governments" frequently fall and it leads to instability. Obviously, the benefit is that other parties would be represented in Congress.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I would love there to be a religious fundamentalist party (wait for it) BECAUSE they would only be about 30% of the congress and would not be able to push their views on the whole country. They would need a coalition to pass anything. (The same can be said for extreme liberals.) On the other hand, I fear that racial parties would form and divide the country in ways that are difficult to reconcile.

What do you think?

 

[spidey07]

Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Like what happened in Germany yesterday with its 5 major parties?

I would like that ONLY if we had more parties, such that they had to form coalition governments in order to govern. Meaning, no one party could achieve > 50% seats.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. Your representative only gives a shit about you until he/she can redraw the lines so that he/she will never lose an election. And even then, representatives are more beholden to corporate interests than the man on the street because with corporate influence, you can buy the man's vote, but a man's vote doesn't buy corporate influence.

Our government is a far cry from representational. In your 6th grade Civics class, yea, we are a representative government. In reality? Not so much.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. Your representative only gives a shit about you until he/she can redraw the lines so that he/she will never lose an election. And even then, representatives are more beholden to corporate interests than the man on the street because with corporate influence, you can buy the man's vote, but a man's vote doesn't buy corporate influence.

Our government is a far cry from representational. In your 6th grade Civics class, yea, we are a representative government. In reality? Not so much.

Meh, when reps/senators get pounded by phone calls regarding how they vote they DO change their mind. I know I was describing WHY it's like that and the ideal.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. Your representative only gives a shit about you until he/she can redraw the lines so that he/she will never lose an election. And even then, representatives are more beholden to corporate interests than the man on the street because with corporate influence, you can buy the man's vote, but a man's vote doesn't buy corporate influence.

Our government is a far cry from representational. In your 6th grade Civics class, yea, we are a representative government. In reality? Not so much.

Maybe you should take a page out of the civic responsibility handbook and write to your representatives if you don't like the way they are doing stuff.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

and what do we get for it? terrible, ineffective government, and reprsenttives that really don't do a god job of representing us.



one thing that has been proposed is to apportion based on the state, so in that case texas might send 15 R 10 D and a mismash of others to congress. California might send 25 D, 5 G, 15 R, and so forth.

Regional local and issue parties would gain alot from such a system, and you would probably end up being able to vote for some to actually represent your interests, instead of the least offensive of two mediocre candidates

 

[Fern]

It's a way to break the 2 party's system control on government - a good thing IMO.

But what are all the negatives to this?

All things come at a cost (ying & yang etc)

Fern

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fern
It's a way to break the 2 party's system control on government - a good thing IMO.

But what are all the negatives to this?

All things come at a cost (ying & yang etc)

Fern

So many platforms that are diametrically opposed on so many issues that no bill would get passed or congressional approval met (and in some ways that could be good, others terrible like authorization for force).

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Can I get a HELL NO. The reason we have congressional districts is so we have a representative close to us that is supposed to understand the issues that affect us directly. Same with senators for the state. That's the idea of local, representative gubment.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. Your representative only gives a shit about you until he/she can redraw the lines so that he/she will never lose an election. And even then, representatives are more beholden to corporate interests than the man on the street because with corporate influence, you can buy the man's vote, but a man's vote doesn't buy corporate influence.

Our government is a far cry from representational. In your 6th grade Civics class, yea, we are a representative government. In reality? Not so much.

Meh, when reps/senators get pounded by phone calls regarding how they vote they DO change their mind. I know I was describing WHY it's like that and the ideal.

I think we can all agree the two parties blow. Any way to reduce their influence is a good thing. This will never happen though.

 

[Craig234]

I don't have an opinion on that; my priorities for reform are a ranked voting system and campaign finance reform.

 

[MotF Bane]

For one, that would give a chance at setting up something besides the same two collections of idiots, and for two, it's not like we're represented anyways right now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
It's a way to break the 2 party's system control on government - a good thing IMO.

But what are all the negatives to this?

All things come at a cost (ying & yang etc)

Fern

The main weakness is that proportional systems tend to be weaker and less stable than winner take all ones. Coalitions would be formed and broken much more easily and Congress would probably be even more of a quagmire than it is now.

 

[PrinceofWands]

As we are today, HELL NO!

Only if you first remove all existing parties and implement a system of rational parties based on solid theoretical ideals rather than random platforms. Then I can see the benefits of such a system.

I'm basically against parties. I believe they are inherently corrupt and bring down governments more than they help people.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As we are today, HELL NO!

Only if you first remove all existing parties and implement a system of rational parties based on solid theoretical ideals rather than random platforms. Then I can see the benefits of such a system.

I'm basically against parties. I believe they are inherently corrupt and bring down governments more than they help people.

I would love to see what you consider 'solid theoretical ideals' to be. I'm guessing it is shorthand for 'ideas I agree with'.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fern
It's a way to break the 2 party's system control on government - a good thing IMO.

But what are all the negatives to this?

All things come at a cost (ying & yang etc)

Fern

So many platforms that are diametrically opposed on so many issues that no bill would get passed or congressional approval met (and in some ways that could be good, others terrible like authorization for force).

Bills not getting passed is a good thing. If a bill does get passed in a proportional system due to cooperation by different parties, it's hopefully a better law than just passing each party's pet ideas every 4 years. You might like the laws passed under your party, but the pendulum always swings.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As we are today, HELL NO!

Only if you first remove all existing parties and implement a system of rational parties based on solid theoretical ideals rather than random platforms. Then I can see the benefits of such a system.

I'm basically against parties. I believe they are inherently corrupt and bring down governments more than they help people.

I would love to see what you consider 'solid theoretical ideals' to be. I'm guessing it is shorthand for 'ideas I agree with'.

Not at all, since there would obviously be opposing parties. The point is to have the party alignment make sense, rather than a jumble of random platforms as it is in our current system.

My paper on the benefits of a 3-axis political compass would probably be a good place to start, though I imagine others would be able to improve upon it. That would define 9 unique political party theories, placing it at about the maximum for viable number of parties (5-8 being ideal according to most research and thresholds). It would also inherently define the voting coalitions based on each axis (such as the economic).

Of course, I'd really like broader election reform to happen in conjunction - especially total public funding. That would fit really well with a proportional electoral system.

 

[JS80]

i may not be understand this correctly

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I would love there to be a religious fundamentalist party (wait for it) BECAUSE they would only be about 30% of the congress and would not be able to push their views on the whole country.

I don't think the basics of the current system are wrong. It's the people and the corruption of system that's no good. Pols respond to money and special interests (lobbys, unions etc) more than voters.

For libs, anyone who isn't pro sodomy/homosexual marriage is a far right religious fundamentalist when in fact homosexual marriage lost in every election it was voted on and over 60% don't support it. Close to 80% of Americans describe themselves as Christians of some kind, and other groups like Muslims and black Muslims are even more strict (indeed even the farcical Southern Poverty Law Center has Farrakhan Muslims listed as a hate group). When you look at things like homosexual marriage the people doing the pushing are homosexuals. It's normal people (I wont even characterize them as merely religious) then pushing back .

It all reminds me of what Bill Buckley used to say about libs always defending USSR against the US (in the 70's/80's) by saying the US is "provocative" to USSR. He said the situation was like a man pushing an old lady in front of a bus - and then another man pushing an old lady out of the way of the bus - and then the papers saying "Two Men Push Around Old Lady".

We see the same things as Dems get ready to push "insurance reform" on people when they obviously dont want it now (see today's Rasmussen) and will really hate it when it kicks in (which is why Obama delays bills coming into action until after the election in 2013)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As we are today, HELL NO!

Only if you first remove all existing parties and implement a system of rational parties based on solid theoretical ideals rather than random platforms. Then I can see the benefits of such a system.

I'm basically against parties. I believe they are inherently corrupt and bring down governments more than they help people.

I would love to see what you consider 'solid theoretical ideals' to be. I'm guessing it is shorthand for 'ideas I agree with'.

Not at all, since there would obviously be opposing parties. The point is to have the party alignment make sense, rather than a jumble of random platforms as it is in our current system.

My paper on the benefits of a 3-axis political compass would probably be a good place to start, though I imagine others would be able to improve upon it. That would define 9 unique political party theories, placing it at about the maximum for viable number of parties (5-8 being ideal according to most research and thresholds). It would also inherently define the voting coalitions based on each axis (such as the economic).

Of course, I'd really like broader election reform to happen in conjunction - especially total public funding. That would fit really well with a proportional electoral system.

What about the two parties' platforms do you consider a jumble of random ideas or whatever?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What about the two parties' platforms do you consider a jumble of random ideas or whatever?

They're both for freedom, except for the things they don't agree with. So yes, they're jumbles of random ideas built to please a voting block. There is no logical consistency in either of them.

 

[jdjbuffalo]

I don't like this. I can't imagine it being better than what we've got.

What reforms we really need:
- Campaign Finance Reform - All public funding. Max $2000 to any candidate. No corporate money allowed in ANY form (direct/indirect money, gifts etc.)
- No lobbying in ANY form. If we want corporations input then we'll ask for it. This also leads into corporations shouldn't be considered people (see below)
- Term Limits - No more lifetime politicians. Term should be max of 12 years as a senator, 8 years as a rep. and 12 years max in the Congress.
- Eliminate parties. I would prefer everyone to be voted in on their own merits and not because they are "the 'best' we can find for your party".
- I would accept keeping parties if we can make some reasonable changes to the current system.
---Presidents should not be affiliated with a party. Since the each branch is supposed to be fairly independent, so as to allow proper checks and balances, the Executive branch should not be aligned with anyone in Congress.
---In the Congress we need more than 2 parties. We need at least 3 but 4-5 would be preferable.

Corporations shouldn't be considered people for a number of reasons. Corporations should be considered their own separate legal entity with their own set of laws governing them. I know that the mantra of people who support the current setup will argue that corporations are merely collections of people and it's convenient for legal reasons to consider them people. The problem is corporations have huge disproportionate amount of power and say in our government than any one person (not including the few people who own massive corporations). They don't have a direct vote for a representative but can be instrumental in getting "their guy" elected.

I could go into further details about corporations but I won't so as to try and keep this reply short(ish).

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I would love there to be a religious fundamentalist party (wait for it) BECAUSE they would only be about 30% of the congress and would not be able to push their views on the whole country.

I don't think the basics of the current system are wrong. It's the people and the corruption of system that's no good. Pols respond to money and special interests (lobbys, unions etc) more than voters.

For libs, anyone who isn't pro sodomy/homosexual marriage is a far right religious fundamentalist when in fact homosexual marriage lost in every election it was voted on and over 60% don't support it. Close to 80% of Americans describe themselves as Christians of some kind, and other groups like Muslims and black Muslims are even more strict (indeed even the farcical Southern Poverty Law Center has Farrakhan Muslims listed as a hate group). When you look at things like homosexual marriage the people doing the pushing are homosexuals. It's normal people (I wont even characterize them as merely religious) then pushing back .

It all reminds me of what Bill Buckley used to say about libs always defending USSR against the US (in the 70's/80's) by saying the US is "provocative" to USSR. He said the situation was like a man pushing an old lady in front of a bus - and then another man pushing an old lady out of the way of the bus - and then the papers saying "Two Men Push Around Old Lady".

We see the same things as Dems get ready to push "insurance reform" on people when they obviously dont want it now (see today's Rasmussen) and will really hate it when it kicks in (which is why Obama delays bills coming into action until after the election in 2013)

You forgot something about Communists, Butterbean.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What about the two parties' platforms do you consider a jumble of random ideas or whatever?

They're both for freedom, except for the things they don't agree with. So yes, they're jumbles of random ideas built to please a voting block. There is no logical consistency in either of them.

No, that's silly... they aren't both 'for freedom'. All American concepts of freedom are limited in some way by the needs of the general population (fire in a theater style). The Democrats and Republicans just draw their lines in different places.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As we are today, HELL NO!

Only if you first remove all existing parties and implement a system of rational parties based on solid theoretical ideals rather than random platforms. Then I can see the benefits of such a system.

I'm basically against parties. I believe they are inherently corrupt and bring down governments more than they help people.

I would love to see what you consider 'solid theoretical ideals' to be. I'm guessing it is shorthand for 'ideas I agree with'.

Not at all, since there would obviously be opposing parties. The point is to have the party alignment make sense, rather than a jumble of random platforms as it is in our current system.

My paper on the benefits of a 3-axis political compass would probably be a good place to start, though I imagine others would be able to improve upon it. That would define 9 unique political party theories, placing it at about the maximum for viable number of parties (5-8 being ideal according to most research and thresholds). It would also inherently define the voting coalitions based on each axis (such as the economic).

Of course, I'd really like broader election reform to happen in conjunction - especially total public funding. That would fit really well with a proportional electoral system.

What about the two parties' platforms do you consider a jumble of random ideas or whatever?

Democrats are supposed to be federalists/socialists, but are turning to private insurance to provide basic human services. Republicans are the party of individual right and liberty but squashed habeus corpus and the first amendment whenever possible. How can a party that wants government out of our lives support government making rules about marriage, or sex, or drug use? Which party is pro-market economics and which is against it? Which is the party of states rights? Which party wants smaller government? Last I checked both parties were roughly equivalent in all those things.

There are no meaningful differences in the two main parties, and what differences do exist are based on voting issues, not theoretical foundations. So a party may be pro-states rights in some things, but against it in others. If the left is the opposite of the right, then how can both parties be supporting increased spending? Who do you vote for if you're AGAINST spending increases and AGAINST debt/deficits and AGAINST the whole market economy idea?

If you design parties around general theories then all of their platforms are derived from those theories and you get no such contradictions. That means people could once again expect our representatives to vote closer to our ideas rather than being forced to go along with one of only two options.