not another political question

Just kidding. It is.

Proportional representation: could it work in your country? (Or perhaps our German friends can tell us if it works for them.)

I've always thought that it would help combat the nasty two-party shit in the U.S. by making legislators elected by political party according to the percentage of the popular vote that a party gets. Could potentially help get smaller parties and "fringe" interests into actual seats. I'd much rather vote for party platforms that better fit my interests than voting for some idiot Democrat or Republican. Of course, the House is there to counteract disproportionate population amongst the states, so the Senate would be the place to do it--after all, it has 100 seats already, so converting from popular vote to seats requires no math! I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference and maybe people would be too confused to even vote beyond the two parties we already have (not that such a change would ever occur, since it wouldn't be in the best interest of an entrenched two-party system, but this is just conjecture).

proprtional representation is both good and bad. in theory it is probably the most democrtatic from of representaion. not like first past the post where at times almost half the votes cast don't matter.

proportional representaion can lead to parliament being fragmented by numerous parties. this can mean that coalitions of many parties are required to form a often unstable governmenment. this happened in Weimar Germany, and lead to the people's distrust in democracy. another example is italy, where since ww2 they almost had more governments than years

the modern german parliament is made up of both costituancies and proportional representation. however, germany since ww2 has had a 5% clause where no party that achieves less than 5% of the vote is not represented. this is to avoid the fate of the Weimar Republic parties and has kept the number of parties represented in the Bundestag to usually four. BTW the german upper house is appointed by the state governments. the electorate does not get to vote for it directly.

In Australia the upper house (Senate) is elected by proportional representation. it is the one place where our smaller parties like the Democrats and Greens are represented. proportional representation in the senate here has usually worked well by curbing the excess of government policy. unfortunatel the current government now has majorites in both houses.

The problem with the two party system is that the voter is almost always reduced to a "Go for the lesser evil" method of judgement between Far Right and and Centrist Right. Neither Democrat or Republican is interested so much in Serving the Electorate nearly as much as acheiving their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans have one of two agendas, A) Get into power or B) Stay in power.

Gaining the candor of your nation's electorate is always helpful (though becoming less important in this country as everyone is getting more absolutionist polarized every year), but so is paying off those special interest groups (that helped pay for your representative/senatorial campaign) by fighting to pass legislation that gives incentives and breaks to the corporations and industrial complexes that those Political Action Committees and lobbyists represent in Washington. And so the iron triangle goes on (though all your U.S. political science textbooks will try to tell you that iron triangles are gone).

A multi-party system is a good idea, it might incite fragmentation, especially with Americans, who are prone to polarization and ear-covering politically, but since no party in congress would have an overwhelming majority, it would encourage actual dialogue, discourse, and compromise between different views on the floor to get agendas pushed through. This would be much preferable to the current tactic of "Get 51% of the seats, say Fuck Off to everyone else".

' Apes..... can you hear rotors mate?

Hannett of the Apes wrote: The problem with the two party system is that the voter is almost always reduced to a "Go for the lesser evil" method of judgement between Far Right and and Centrist Right. Neither Democrat or Republican is interested so much in Serving the Electorate nearly as much as acheiving their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans have one of two agendas, A) Get into power or B) Stay in power.

Gaining the candor of your nation's electorate is always helpful (though becoming less important in this country as everyone is getting more absolutionist polarized every year), but so is paying off those special interest groups (that helped pay for your representative/senatorial campaign) by fighting to pass legislation that gives incentives and breaks to the corporations and industrial complexes that those Political Action Committees and lobbyists represent in Washington. And so the iron triangle goes on (though all your U.S. political science textbooks will try to tell you that iron triangles are gone).

A multi-party system is a good idea, it might incite fragmentation, especially with Americans, who are prone to polarization and ear-covering politically, but since no party in congress would have an overwhelming majority, it would encourage actual dialogue, discourse, and compromise between different views on the floor to get agendas pushed through. This would be much preferable to the current tactic of "Get 51% of the seats, say Fuck Off to everyone else".

i think that a propotional system in countries such as the usa would increase the power of the president and do away with much of the so called checks and balances, as congress would be hard pressed to form a unified position to oppose the president.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Hannett of the Apes wrote: The problem with the two party system is that the voter is almost always reduced to a "Go for the lesser evil" method of judgement between Far Right and and Centrist Right. Neither Democrat or Republican is interested so much in Serving the Electorate nearly as much as acheiving their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans have one of two agendas, A) Get into power or B) Stay in power.

Gaining the candor of your nation's electorate is always helpful (though becoming less important in this country as everyone is getting more absolutionist polarized every year), but so is paying off those special interest groups (that helped pay for your representative/senatorial campaign) by fighting to pass legislation that gives incentives and breaks to the corporations and industrial complexes that those Political Action Committees and lobbyists represent in Washington. And so the iron triangle goes on (though all your U.S. political science textbooks will try to tell you that iron triangles are gone).

A multi-party system is a good idea, it might incite fragmentation, especially with Americans, who are prone to polarization and ear-covering politically, but since no party in congress would have an overwhelming majority, it would encourage actual dialogue, discourse, and compromise between different views on the floor to get agendas pushed through. This would be much preferable to the current tactic of "Get 51% of the seats, say Fuck Off to everyone else".

i think that a propotional system in countries such as the usa would increase the power of the president and do away with much of the so called checks and balances, as congress would be hard pressed to form a unified position to oppose the president.

Nah, we have PR-stv here & whoever dosent get into government quickly gets lumped together as 'the opposition' - they spend all their time & effort 'working together' to bring down the government. they are all a shower of self-interested bolloxes anyway, y'know, the shit always rises to the top. I know a few good TDs (our MPs) but most of them got into power because they wanted power - & they are never the right people to give power to! (speaking from experiance - i've known quite a lot of these people since before they got elected)

Still, I'm a great believer in democracy & the PR-stv system - at least we can say 'its our own fault - we voted for these wankers'

CuanaD wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Hannett of the Apes wrote: The problem with the two party system is that the voter is almost always reduced to a "Go for the lesser evil" method of judgement between Far Right and and Centrist Right. Neither Democrat or Republican is interested so much in Serving the Electorate nearly as much as acheiving their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans have one of two agendas, A) Get into power or B) Stay in power.

Gaining the candor of your nation's electorate is always helpful (though becoming less important in this country as everyone is getting more absolutionist polarized every year), but so is paying off those special interest groups (that helped pay for your representative/senatorial campaign) by fighting to pass legislation that gives incentives and breaks to the corporations and industrial complexes that those Political Action Committees and lobbyists represent in Washington. And so the iron triangle goes on (though all your U.S. political science textbooks will try to tell you that iron triangles are gone).

A multi-party system is a good idea, it might incite fragmentation, especially with Americans, who are prone to polarization and ear-covering politically, but since no party in congress would have an overwhelming majority, it would encourage actual dialogue, discourse, and compromise between different views on the floor to get agendas pushed through. This would be much preferable to the current tactic of "Get 51% of the seats, say Fuck Off to everyone else".

i think that a propotional system in countries such as the usa would increase the power of the president and do away with much of the so called checks and balances, as congress would be hard pressed to form a unified position to oppose the president.

Nah, we have PR-stv here & whoever dosent get into government quickly gets lumped together as 'the opposition' - they spend all their time & effort 'working together' to bring down the government. they are all a shower of self-interested bolloxes anyway, y'know, the shit always rises to the top. I know a few good TDs (our MPs) but most of them got into power because they wanted power - & they are never the right people to give power to! (speaking from experiance - i've known quite a lot of these people since before they got elected)

Still, I'm a great believer in democracy & the PR-stv system - at least we can say 'its our own fault - we voted for these wankers'

Yeh but your president just has ceremonial powers. the real power still resides in your parliament and prime minister.

i really dislike our two-party system. it's made both parties far too complacent (although the democrats need to be less compacent at the moment!). as for voting for a third-party, there are usually seven or eight candidates for president on the ballot in most states so you CAN vote for another person besides a democrat or republican, it's just that most choose not to do so.

AgentWood wrote: i really dislike our two-party system. it's made both parties far too complacent (although the democrats need to be less compacent at the moment!). as for voting for a third-party, there are usually seven or eight candidates for president on the ballot in most states so you CAN vote for another person besides a democrat or republican, it's just that most choose not to do so.

I blame that on the electoral college, which is basically fixed to keep a two-party system (even if that wasn't the intent of the forefathers). For a presidential candidate to win any electoral votes, he/she has to win a majority of the popular vote in an ENTIRE state, which will never happen in a two-party system. And why can't members of the electoral college vote for whomever they like? Because they are typically appointed by the two parties as a reward for long-term loyalty. Not like they'd ever jump ship and go for a third party candidate.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

I blame that on the electoral college, which is basically fixed to keep a two-party system (even if that wasn't the intent of the forefathers). For a presidential candidate to win any electoral votes, he/she has to win a majority of the popular vote in an ENTIRE state, which will never happen in a two-party system. And why can't members of the electoral college vote for whomever they like? Because they are typically appointed by the two parties as a reward for long-term loyalty. Not like they'd ever jump ship and go for a third party candidate.

they can vote for whomever they like but they almost never do, because they follow the will of the majority. agree or disagree with it, that's their job. on occasion a member of the college will vote against the majority but it doesn't happen very often.

I don't want LA and NYC controlling the government. Don't fuck with the system. Clean up the parties.