US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy? - Page 8

Figment · 2012-06-27, 06:40 PM

Tbh, I'm quite afraid about the future the ECB brings, since it's currently controlled by an Italian who might be more prone to bending the rules for southern Europe a little.

He already kinda did.

Aside from Icesave, there's not been many problems up north. Banks had to be bailed out, but those already paid back virtually everything. Biggest threat atm is our pension funds due to the stock exchange collapse on top of increasing average age of the populace.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-27, 07:23 PM

Meh.

Saifoda · 2012-06-27, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Tbh, I'm quite afraid about the future the ECB brings, since it's currently controlled by an Italian who might be more prone to bending the rules for southern Europe a little.

He already kinda did.

Aside from Icesave, there's not been many problems up north. Banks had to be bailed out, but those already paid back virtually everything. Biggest threat atm is our pension funds due to the stock exchange collapse on top of increasing average age of the populace.

Maybe... With the Spanish bank bailout though they dictated Italy front 20% of the cost, debting itself at the market rate of 7% while Spain only had to pay back at a rate of 3% -- pretty well screwed over.

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

It's the corporations man! The world is a puppet to the corporations!! Only when we like, get rid of the corporations will life be better, man. Ooh, pass me another joint bro!

No, we shouldn't get rid of the corporations.

We should get rid of the corporate money/union money/etc etc out of politics however.

Get rid of the lobbyists.

Figment · 2012-06-28, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Vecha

No, we shouldn't get rid of the corporations.

We should get rid of the corporate money/union money/etc etc out of politics however.

Get rid of the lobbyists.

Which is IMO best done by not letting them be able to focus on specific politicians since it's one of two sides that will get in charge. Which means opening up politics to more groups with different ideas. Especially those fundamentally and principally opposed to lobbyist influence.

Another way to do this is to make it more transparant where people get their funding from for campaigns, how much their campaigns cost and (what will never happen) to make clear what deals were made around those... "contributions", as well as a list of contracts these people get from the government on a year by year basis and research if these are indeed properly awarded for being the best offer for said contract.

The term system Malorn suggested can help as well, but isn't enough in and on itself though. On the other hand you would see an even shorter term thinking evolve in policy making, which is already too short term due to people making popular decisions JUST for the elections (not because there's a vision behind it). Anyway, meaning the maximum period shouldn't be too short either. But excesses in extending terms especially like Chavez or Putin and other dictators should indeed never, ever be allowed.

Saifoda · 2012-06-28, 08:44 AM

One of the things I would entertain is a return to the old style of electing Senators. Reps were originally elected by the population whereas Senators were elected by the State (usually through their legislatures and gubernatorial section, if I recall correctly). This can help to alleviate the "money" problem in another way in that legislatures at the state level mostly live in politics already and more closely accountable to their constituents than reps/senators in Congress.

Unfortunately the money issue is a huge problem, and difficult to fix. There is already somewhat "decent" transparency for campaign contributions, and it still doesn't really matter -- everybody knows that Goldman Sachs is the largest contributor to BOTH Romney and Obama campaigns...does that stop them from being the only two "real" choices? Not really...

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-06-28, 08:54 AM

I feel we should increase the size of congress, honestly. In a huge way. The current size of congress is not represenative by any stretch of the imagination. The system is broken utterly.

How many representatives should there be? Oh, maybe ten thousand would just about do it. Being in the house of representatives should be nothing more than a part-time job, and each rep should represent maybe thirty thousand people. We'd need ten thousand reps to accomplish that.

When the framers decided on the size of congress, every rep at that time represented about 40-60 thousand people. Now every congressman represents 700,000 people. It doesn't work. Congress no longer represents the will of the people.

This needs to change, in my opinion.

Baneblade · 2012-06-28, 09:12 AM

Direct Representation in the US wasn't feasible because of the size of the nation.. The government was designed to function without having to wait weeks or months for a simple function to be addressed.

Saifoda · 2012-06-28, 09:57 AM

Increase size of HOR to a 1:30k or maybe 1:50k population ratio; this can be done easily without the need for physical expansion (though considering the multiple stimulus plans that cost nearly $4 MILLION per job, I don't think it would be a terrible waste by comparison to build more) because of internet/intranet/arpanet/etc...

Congressional term limits, HOR = 4 term max (8 years) Senate = 2 term max (12 years); keep it staggered.

Proportional representation rather than district representation. Rep voting by state, candidates who receive overall most votes are sent to congress.

Each citizen is granted one vote per seat in the house and senate; obvi this means two votes in senate (can split your vote if you want) and let's say the state population is 3 million with a 30k district population, that gives u 100 votes (100 seats) to divy between candidates as you see fit -- if you REALLY want one particular candidate, dump all votes onto that one. If you really like 2 or 3, split your votes as you see fit between those 2-3. This will help to alleviate the issue of the two-party system, as with that many seats there will be many candidates, republican and democrat AND third parties (green, libertarian, etc...) The greeners and libbies (etc.) will most likely dump all their votes onto their preferred candidate, whereas individuals trying to vote on party lines will have their votes more evenly split between the jackass with a D and the jackass with an R. If the D or R really appeal to the population, they will dump their votes on them as well, to get a particular individual elected, NOT just party members toeing the line.

Alternatively, let the States determine how appointment of Senators will be done through State legislation. Can give the people of the State the votes for Senators, can give those votes to the legislatures, can make it a gubernatorial dictation if the State is so inclined -- though I doubt many legislatures who vote for that kind of appointment system will last long in their position, and the people of the states have much more proportional power than the people of the many States.

And this last one isn't really a legal change, but get back to the fucking Constitution already; it's MEANT to be changed -- it was DESIGNED to be a changing document! In a "nation of laws," which is so much a given that it's become cliché and politicians don't even say it any more, you follow the fucking rules -- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Also, people need to understand what the 9th and (particularly) 10th amendments are and what they're designed for.

Figment · 2012-06-29, 10:35 AM

The problem with electing candidates on a candidate per candidate basis is of course information.

The way it's done in the Netherlands is this:

(Shown is the provincial elections form, think of it as the state elections in the US).

We have elections on a county, province and national level with regards to the government and also something called "waterschappen", which is more about water management and dike security within the polder.

For each type of election, you get one vote per citizen. This vote can be cast on anyone on the list. The list contains any party that wants to participate in the elections. The list can be as long as a party wants it to be, though they tend to be just a bit longer than the expected amount of seats they'll gain.

Typically people that don't know the candidates that well and just the party, vote for a party in general by voting for the leading candidate, the faction leader on that level if you will.

However "Preference Votes" are votes cast for people further down the list. For instance you'd vote for them because they were doing a good job and wanted to retain them, or because they approach your personal view a bit more.

On a national level, the amount of seats (150) is divided by the total amount of votes cast, to determine how many votes you need for one seat. Then, naturally, total votes per party are tallied to determine how many seats a party gets. There are of course some rules in place for distributing any "rest" seats among the parties that aren't quite enough to get a full seat. Meaning this is around 3-4 seats that can individually be assigned to specific parties, but it's no more than one per party that gets added.

Note though that there's a treshold parties have to reach to get a seat at all: they have to get at least 0,667%. Though this is because only those parties that are actually capable of getting at least one seat on their own, get a chance of being awarded a rest seat. (100% / 150 = 0,667% needed, or 1/150 seats minimal required)

The next step is to fill in who gets in on those seats. This depends a bit on the party in question and if someone may have withdrawn from the list, but typically, the people who got voted for are listed in order of amount of votes. The top candidates are then given a seat by most parties, meaning the voter can directly influence the order of the list. It therefore has happened that someone on an "non-electional seat" (candidate listed below the expected amount of attained seats) gets a seat at the cost of someone higher up the list. It has even happened that someone else got more votes than the leading candidate!

The prime minister is typically the leading candidate of the biggest party within the eventualy formed coalition. So basically, we got our factional, presidential and parliament elections in one go. Saves a lot of costs.

We also have a senate of sorts, but that's elected by the people in charge of the provincial parliaments.

In the Netherlands in 2010, about 75.4% of the people eligible voted (meaning 9.44 million people voted). This was the result:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweede_...iezingsuitslag

These votes are collected on a county by county basis, rather than on a provincial level as that's not needed as there's no district system.

And you can see how this is represented in the country (2010 elections, each election the map looks a bit different):

The red zones (labour party) in the west are some of the big cities. The red zones in the north east are agricultural areas. Blue and green zones are typically mixes of agricultural zones and towns. Note that ALL the top four-five cities are coloured predominantly red, but that the actual distribution within the counties as a whole tends to follow the national distribution trendline with minor differences and with some spikes in certain regions who have a traditional backing of one political party.

So to say certain cities would dominate the elections as Malorn suggest, would only be true if you have a district system and if you've got a very big population density and area difference in favour of towns, because then the other people in these counties would not have been represented. Instead, each vote counts, resulting in a similar distribution in national division as on a local level.

However, if you look at that image, if the Netherlands had had a district system, the 31/150 seats for the liberal party would have become around 50, the Social Democrats and Christian democrats around 35 each and the PVV around 25 with whatever was left going to random parties (SP and SGP), where the SGP is a marginal bible belt party representing approximately 1.5% of the populace. Significantly less to other groups. Yes they would have had approximately the same influence as the Socialist Party if not more, which got ten times the amount of votes, because the SGP would have won more separate districts, even if they're of no concern on a national level.

Would that have been fair? Hell no.

aceshigh · 2012-06-29, 11:12 AM

If Cuba is doing it so right, why are there still so many Cubans dying in the straits every year? Furthermore why do so many of their athletes who are put on a pedestal in that country defect as soon as they touch foot on foreign soil?

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-06-29, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by aceshigh

If Cuba is doing it so right, why are there still so many Cubans dying in the straits every year? Furthermore why do so many of their athletes who are put on a pedestal in that country defect as soon as they touch foot on foreign soil?

I'm not sure what sentiment from what post you're attacking here; I'll only say that while Cuba itself is a good example of a nightmare state I would rather catch Herpes than visit, it is possible for them to come up with individual solutions to civic problems that may, taken on their own merits, be strong solutions.

It's possible they could have a public transportation system, or health care system, or water resource system that is superior to ours, while still being a poor example of a nation when taken on the whole.

Figment · 2012-06-29, 01:17 PM

The problem with Cuba's economy is:

1. A state dominated economy leaving no room for individual enterprising and with no regards for supply and demand
2. Being an island nation and having next to no own resources
3. Being completely isolated from the international market on a whole lot of levels (particularly due to US pressure against communist states).

"Look they're doing crap! It's the system!". Partially yes, pretty bad political and economic system on the whole. Doesn't mean subsystems or ideas can't work or must be equally bad as Sheppy suggests, as long as you have the funding for it. That's the thing about American politics though "everything the opposition suggests is evil incarnate". That's about as dumb as you can get and some things are actually worth paying for as a community.

Doesn't quite beat the absolute morons who say "liberals will kill the elderly with euthenasia", but comes close enough.

Of course if you ask people if they want to live in Cuba, then of course they will say no because even if something is better, doesn't beat having no food nor freedom. Unless of course you're a tourist, in which case you eat more in a day then the average Cuban in a week.

Of course, if, like certain big stars from South America, they already have loads of money, they'll go there and pretend everything is awesome and that they're big socialists and fans of Castro (lol giggle roflmao). Funny how those people usualy aren't that bright either (like Maradonna).

The Loverator · 2012-07-03, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

As a dutch citizen, the US 'democracy' always makes you wonder.

I seriously don't want to offend anyone here, but Sorry - this is a harsh Truth...

Some Years by now, i have again and again heard People saying that in the USA, there "is" no
Democracy nowadays.

Even in Germany, there is no real Democracy - but "even" there, it looks better as in the USA.
Because in Germany, People only seem to dumb to change anything (lol, Sorry),

Jeah for 'insulting' my own Country i'm such a Jerk, am I? :-P But it's true, sadly...

Well, i repeat myself,
while in Germany, People are simply to simpleminded to use their political System,
or are "to aware" that pretty much EVERY PARTY does only do Cr** for the Country at some Part,

well - in the united States - it's even worse at least from how it looks from the Outside,
People can at most choose one of two Party's - and then be sure that NEITHER of these

two Party's will do anything of the Folk's Will - or that "some People"
( whoever "they" may be ) will always
try to disturb any "changing Person's" Way/Will most of the Time, so that the 'hidden' Party's
and Person's who own Power and Wealth - will keep both as they want it.

Funny "and" unfunny: While this sounds like "Conspiracy-theorys" already,
it's by all Honesty not so much Conspiracy-theory at all - but a true, sad Fact.

A Fact so ugly, that i almost have complete Comprehension why so many People in America
turn nasty, coldhearted, unfriendly or even dangerous - in all their Variations.

People can always be sure, that a unfair System 'wants' to STAY unfair,
because the Unfairness
itself is kinda always organised by those who benefit from it,

and therefore: These People will "of Course" do anything in their Might so that
this will never change.
And the USA have a much, MUCH stronger " Feign-Democracy ", as Germany has.

People often claim and say that the united States are so very different from Russia or China,
because Russia and China
are communistic and dictatorial Country's - Russia lesser, China more.

But: In some Terms, the "worse" Parts, who are clearly dictatorial and not democratic,
are more and more - and slowly stronger by the Years, to observe in America, as well.

Burning/Combustion-point: Police-Violence/Injustice...

Some People are always claiming that there 'is' no dictatorial Police-Violence present in America,
but the Police-Violence in America is partially CLEARLY worse as in China or Russia.

For everyone who don't believes it - please try hard to chase after Footage on Video-Sides and
Platform's, like YouTube - or other Side "outside of the German-speaking Region"...

And please go AT LEAST for Video's up to the Year 2001 and before.

Sooo, nobody could or would just to check - use so much of his/her's Freetime, right?

But... ... well... ... you will discover, that most Footage from "excessive" Violence going
out from Police Officer's, up to even inhuman, cruel Degree, is always recorded from the USA.

Not just because "China blocks always Footage from it's Country anyway" ...
or because of Russia doing allegedly the same,

but because many, MANY Injustice and Dissimulation are taking place in America,
and it's really sad that above Three'hundred Million People are letting other's do this to them.

How can a Country be a Democracy and be free,
when it supports Police-Executive's to work 'against' the People?

Then, some People come with the "Dangerous-Argument/Reason", saying that America is
s~ooooooooo dangerous and that Policemen would need to be as trained like Soldiers, at
least at some/(many?) Parts of the united States... ... ... but there it is again.

A Police-Officer, trained to a fighting Machine, quick with Gun's, Tazers and unarmed Fighting,
this, umm... ... is 'again', a Person, trained to work "against" the People.
Not just the incredible trained Police-Officer, but his ridiculous Overload of "Rights"...

In a proper working Society, even if there are dangerous Person's and Policemen need to be
very fit and capable as well - there is no Need for Policemen to work so hard AGAINST the People, as
it is in America. A Police-Officer should never be a walking Threat like in dictatorial Country's.

Some People "try" ( oooh, meany me :-P ) to call this the Police-State,
but i prefer to stay honest. There 'IS' nothing like a "Police-State".

A "Police-State" is something that only People need and support, who don't "trust" in Other's,
who don't trust in ' Tolerance ' - and also, don't trust in Democracy.

Because true Democracy needs Trust... ... ...

Well, my Post gets to long again - and i'm afraid i'm maybe only pissing People more off,
than i help them with it - but please believe me, i'm no Hypocrite...

I don't "act" like there rules a Democracy in America. And not really in Germany, either.

Let's just say, Please - that a TRUE Democracy knows the Word Folk/Popular Vote.

A Vote, which god-damned gets RESPECTED by the People, managing the Country,
a Vote, which doesn't get swindled at, doesn't get thwarted/slowed down and stopped,

because some People think that their own Volition stand above that of the Population.

Sadly, America is ruled by People who seem to own always both Party's, at least to some Part.

Someone did a Prophesy that " America will break apart " into Three or Six smaller States,
sometimes in the coming Years in the Future...

Well... ... let's hope that these People, may it be a single Individual or a whole Group,
are wrong - and that America will someday change to the Better, without a needed Destruction
of the Form of a whole State. Because several States means "more non-united Teamwork".

greetings, LV.

**Malorn** · 2012-07-03, 01:31 PM

Meh.