US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy? - Page 2

Baneblade · 2012-03-25, 01:18 PM

The reason the House is the size it is and not still expanding like was supposed to happen with the original design was that the Capitol Building couldn't be expanded indefinitely. Already the most junior members of Congress don't even have an office in the Capitol. They have to commute on the subway.

Figment · 2012-03-25, 04:10 PM

That would probably still result in a two or three party system.

Why not look at the way the EU parliament is formed?

TheSHiFT · 2012-03-25, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

That would probably still result in a two or three party system.

Why not look at the way the EU parliament is formed?

Care to explain why you think that? Mathematically, that is false. In a large state such as CA the minimum a party would need to get a seat is <2%.

Just taking a quick look at wiki members of the EU parliament are elected via each state's chosen method. However, each state must use a form of proportional representation, which is what Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Method is.

And the lack of available office space is so easily solved it shouldnt even be considered a determent.

Ait'al · 2012-03-26, 08:30 PM

I'm definitely with the "the first problem is being underrepresented" part. That should be the first part to be fixed or attempted to be fixed. The rest may very well make itself obvious as that is fixed.

NivexQ · 2012-03-27, 01:05 AM

Abolish states, get rid of the bicameral legislature, and form small, somewhat evenly populated districts with 1 representative each. I'm thinking 1 representative per 500,000 people. This would give us about 625 to represent us in congress. I think this would be a great change.

Figment · 2012-03-27, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Abolish states, get rid of the bicameral legislature, and form small, somewhat evenly populated districts with 1 representative each. I'm thinking 1 representative per 500,000 people. This would give us about 625 to represent us in congress. I think this would be a great change.

Then you can bet your arse that the party in charge of the changes will form the districts such that their party will be the majority in that district.

District voting is rigging elections. NEVER should a district system be used.

TheSHiFT · 2012-03-27, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Abolish states, get rid of the bicameral legislature, and form small, somewhat evenly populated districts with 1 representative each. I'm thinking 1 representative per 500,000 people. This would give us about 625 to represent us in congress. I think this would be a great change.

This would be a terrible change. This LESSENS representation, since you effectively dissolved state legislators. This also makes those 625 people (less than the current congress) responsible federal and (formally) state lawmaking. How would you propose districts be drawn and then re-drawn as population shifts? Gerrymandering can be a huge problem if not strictly regulated.

Baneblade · 2012-03-27, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Abolish states, get rid of the bicameral legislature, and form small, somewhat evenly populated districts with 1 representative each. I'm thinking 1 representative per 500,000 people. This would give us about 625 to represent us in congress. I think this would be a great change.

Yay for Bigger Government?

TheSHiFT · 2012-03-27, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Yay for Bigger Government?

This would actually be smaller in terms of representation. Given the small amount of people to legislate, it would be less efficient.

Baneblade · 2012-03-27, 07:39 PM

Bigger Government as in all the power (that matters) resides in D.C.

No thanks.

NivexQ · 2012-03-27, 10:32 PM

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the purpose of states. The reason we have states is because back in the day, they were each basically different countries. The world is getting smaller, so I see no reason to keep states around (or state government, rather). I won't be thickheaded. I might just not understand. Please explain the purpose of states in this day and age?

Figment · 2012-03-28, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by NivexQ

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the purpose of states. The reason we have states is because back in the day, they were each basically different countries. The world is getting smaller, so I see no reason to keep states around (or state government, rather). I won't be thickheaded. I might just not understand. Please explain the purpose of states in this day and age?

I'd say the states of the US can easily be reduced to provinces. They'd still have their own local governments, they'd just have more coherency in terms of law.

Skewed law between bordering states (something you see in Europe as well) leads to inter-state crimes, poor federal integration and information sharing and less consistency. Local governments will always be needed due to having to take care of more local needs, with local people in charge who understand their populace better and have a better understanding of the local geography and economy.

At least that's how it's supposed to work. In reality in the US, from what I can tell anyway, only the people who can afford the campaigns have a chance at governing. There's not really a government system with postings based on merit, intelligence, etc. Basically, you buy your way up through media attention and showing intelligence there is, like John Cleese already put it, deadly for your campaign. It's a popularity contest on the short term with shortsighted, populist rhetoric, nothing more. Since for instance Reps, to get into office, have to appease to ALL sides of the Rep perspective (which is a lot), they have to be just as conservative liberal "leftist right", as they have to be extreme religious conservative "far right". That just doesn't work.

It would be much better for the intelligence of the debate to have each of these parties split up into three to four parties, so they can really target a specific audience and be the voice of a specific voter group.

biertrappist · 2012-03-28, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

As a dutch citizen, the US 'democracy' always makes you wonder. Just two parties, no distribution of votes on a ratio basis, but a system that represents a majorities in a state as one party dictatorial systems.

Like in the UK, this means that only a few parties can actually try and achieve a dominant vote. In the UK for the first time in eons a coalition government had to be formed with the party of Nick Clegg (who ironically is half-dutch).

See, as a dutch person, we may have a monarchy, (which are more stable, neutral and cheaper than presidents thankfully), but we have a constitution that allows for a democracy in terms of populace representation. We have up to 17 different parties with all shades of the political spectrum participate in the elections and majorities are formed by coalitions. This means that it is more likely you can actually find a party that represents your views better than a "social rightwing" and "conservative rightwing" (which is what is the case in America, there isn't a left wing really out of fear of being labeled communist) and also means that not just one dictatorial view dominates the government. They keep each other in check.

So why no representative elections?

2 things. The English "constitiution" such as it is, is largely derived from the Netherlands when Locke was there after Charles 1st lost his head. So the British monarchy is very much a Dutch derived institution.

I can't see how the US has a functioning democracy when election results are forged, manipulated and disregarded. Just go to Reddit to see how the stat analysis proves manipulated returns. Plus the fact that Diebold voting machines were completely open to manipulation and was done so by the Republicans.

Bush should NEVER have won Florida.

Traak · 2012-03-29, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Most people in the USA do not know this.

Traak · 2012-03-29, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by biertrappist

2 things. The English "constitiution" such as it is, is largely derived from the Netherlands when Locke was there after Charles 1st lost his head. So the British monarchy is very much a Dutch derived institution.

I can't see how the US has a functioning democracy when election results are forged, manipulated and disregarded. Just go to Reddit to see how the stat analysis proves manipulated returns. Plus the fact that Diebold voting machines were completely open to manipulation and was done so by the Republicans.

Bush should NEVER have won Florida.

Just like Clinton should have never won Florida before Bush?

For those who only have memories that are anti-Republican, they wilfully forget that the EXACT SAME THING happened in a prior election, where Clinton won Florida on a recount.