2016-03-13, 16:03 | Link #664 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
America is not a Democracy afterall.
__________________
|
|
2016-03-13, 16:38 | Link #666 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
The Electoral College follows (usually) what the majority of their population base vote for in a Presidental election. Third party candidates have been voted for by electors in the past, but that was before my lifetime (late 1960s and early 1970s), with the last ones being the Southern Segregationists supporting a third party against Johnson or Nixon. When the South voted third party against the Civil Rights Movement.
California has made attempts to remove our gerrymandered districts with third party oversight committees and the like for local politics. But after so many generations of people being Republican or Democrat, or since 2001 Red or Blue....things are getting tough to break, as it is starting to sound like sport team loyalists rather than polices that matter. I've seen both sides on Facebook and it is getting nasty both ways and both side declare the other to be idiots, uneducated, or should be sterilized for the good of the future. It is getting bad.
__________________
|
2016-03-13, 17:52 | Link #667 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-03-13, 19:40 | Link #668 |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
It's definitely not good. I don't tend to air out my political views to most people so I don't get caught in it but its incredible how my social circles think of other people on the other side whether or not they're liberal/conservative. Most of it isn't even based on substance, just cultural differences.
__________________
|
2016-03-14, 03:27 | Link #669 |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
I know there is a divisive in opinions. But I actually only experienced how serious this problem is in US when Irenicus lost his shit over me suggesting immigrant detention camp could be an option. Weird thing because generally we had quite a lots of common opinions over a range of issues
But I actually know where he came from honestly. A case of culture shock really. For example, it will also freak the crap out of me if a relative tells me that he has a handgun in his locker for self-defense (what kind of maniac do that!!!), despite clearly it won't be even a story in US. That's when I realise that the divisiveness in US was not a liberal vs conservative thing, more like a specific US political culture thingy. Another example: A guy living in US once told me that "you are not a true progressive if you are not progressive in every issues". Which really baffled me. Like, can't I completely support LGBT rights, completely anti-war, completely for climate change, while in the same time think feminists should be listed as radical terrorists organisations and banned in public? (...just saying) And it was on mainstream media as well. I think Bill Maher recently called the GOP candidate hypocrites as some of them only support gay right because they have gay children, or only support Mexican immigration because they marry to one. Wasn't that completely normal? Like you only have a true diversified society if you have various opinions due to your family background and upbringing? Otherwise if everyone have to pick between progressive or conservative and follow the exact same line of thoughts every time. Then where could new ideas come from?
__________________
Last edited by risingstar3110; 2016-03-14 at 03:38. |
2016-03-14, 09:40 | Link #670 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
In Australia we have preferential voting, instead of First Past the Post. This means no one ever had to be exactly the same politically as each other. This allows a more diverse selection of views for each person because you don't have to agree with everything that a party stand for, to prefer them over another. Political parties are suppose to reflect the views of the people, but give it enough time and the parties would shape the people instead.
__________________
|
|
2016-03-14, 10:46 | Link #671 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
Our politics does follow what I'll call the "Lemieux-Powell rule" based on conversations I once had with my colleague G. Bingham Powell who also studied comparative politics: "It's always different in the south."
__________________
|
|
2016-03-14, 13:06 | Link #672 |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
however too many parties isn't a good idea either.
when the electoral is too fragment small parties like Shas can blackmail major party for benefits for support. as for the SNP, maybe i read too much economist, but i don't think US needs a SNP type party. We already have enough political parties more interested in scoring political points then govern.
__________________
|
2016-03-14, 17:26 | Link #673 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
We have a lot of third parties, but only two have enough reach to even have a chance to get the vote of a elector. This is because they do not show up on the ballots in all 50 states.
There are presently 538 electors. 270 are needed to win the Presidency. The Green Party has access to 296 electoral votes. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin) The Libertarian Party has access to 325 electoral votes. (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming) Of the remaining third parties we have this: The Constitution Party has access to 133 electoral votes. (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming) America's Party has access to 84 electoral votes. (This is California and Florida) The Peace and Freedom Party has access to 84 electoral votes. (This is California and Florida) The Party for Socialism and Liberation has access to 29 electoral votes (this is only Florida) The Prohibition Party has access to 21 electoral votes (Arkansas, Mississippi, and Colorado) The Independent American Party has access to 18 electoral votes (New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon) The Nutrition Party has access to 9 electoral votes (Colorado) The Veteran's Party of America has access to 6 electoral votes (Mississippi) The American Freedom Party has access to 6 electoral votes (Mississippi) The Socialist Party USA and Workers World Party are listed but have no access to electoral votes.
__________________
|
2016-03-14, 18:12 | Link #674 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Naming third parties means nothing if you have first past the post. What matters is the ability to vote third party as your first choice without "wasting" it, by having a preferential system. Strategic voting is bad, because then people just don't vote for who they really want to support. Preferential voting is just more accurate in judging the views of a nation.
__________________
|
2016-03-14, 19:10 | Link #675 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
If one goes to the voting booth in Mississippi, you will have eight parties on the ballot.
If you got you got to the voting booth in California you will have six parties on the ballot. Go to New York and you will have three parties. But go to Virginia and you will have two parties, and only two parties.
__________________
|
2016-03-14, 19:34 | Link #676 | |
"Senior" "Member"
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
Quote:
This flaw in the system keeps established parties strong and non-established parties weak. It's quite an unfair aspect of most 1st world representative election systems. I'd personally go as far as to say that "representation" alltogether can hardly be called "democracy" in the first place, because the people can only excercise their "sovereign power" once in 4 or so years and very rarely in referenda. And then there is also that "flaw" described above pushing it down even further.
__________________
|
|
2016-03-14, 20:44 | Link #677 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
Their systems still seem more fair than ours where the two party mafia effectively legislates the non DEM and GOP parties out of the playing field. Particularly through crazy hard to overcome ballot access laws amongst other things.
THis was documented in the book Grand Illusion; The fantasy of voter choice in a two party system. Many parties for many stripes, thats what facinates me about other countries even if the field still is somewhat centered around two to three main parties. Listen to this interview about the evolving voter constituencies in US state of VA. Note relevant stuff starts 20 minutes in. http://www.hearsay.org/post/A-Common...Contrasts.aspx especially interesting are some of the callers in, I love the super gun rights progressive dude for one. An example of how much more varied the political spectrum is and how parties are not doing a good job speaking to a lot of the new independent voters. as pointed out in this article https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...-turned-voters couple of other great articles on that page as well, talking about why participation is so low in America. Apparently we make it much harder than it need be, along with general political jadedness. |
2016-03-14, 20:57 | Link #678 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Guess that logic makes sense if you understand that the one speaking is a voter, and it is in his best interest that less people vote, because the more people vote the less his own personal vote matter.
__________________
|
|
2016-03-14, 22:02 | Link #679 | |
"Senior" "Member"
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
Quote:
If it was a "Direct Democracy", then people would pay much, much more attention to political matters and the issues themselves, instead of just candidates and parties like we have now.
__________________
|
|
2016-03-14, 22:25 | Link #680 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
2016 caucuses, 2016 elections, 2016 primaries, us elections |
|
|