2020 US Presidential Election

   #661  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,503
Reaction score
21,758
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I think Don may very well be correct: the two party political system needs to end.
I don't think it will end anywhere that there are just one or two "representatives" for a particular geographic area with first-past-the-post voting. Here In the USA, we have 535 congressional districts, each with exactly one Representative, and 50 states, each with exactly two Senators. This makes it nearly impossible for anyone who isn't running as a candidate from one of the two main parties to get their foot in the door. It also means a goodly portion of of the population in each district -- those who voted for the loser(s) -- have no representation, at least for that term. The UK's House of Commons has the same issue; 650 single-member constituencies.

Places where there are more than two parties tend to have systems where at least some of the representation is "at large"; where candidates and/or parties with as little as a single-digit vote totals still end up as representatives. This means voters don't see it as "throwing away" their vote if they don't vote for one of the top two parties.

Some people think that preferential voting systems such as "ranked choice" would fix this, but I'm not at all convinced. If I was starting form scratch, designing a representative republic in the 21st century, I would have a fixed number of representatives, all "elected" at large, and individuals could change who is representing them at any time. Representatives would be proxies for individuals, and if you find yourself in disagreement with your representative over an issue that's important to you, you could pull your proxy from him and give it to someone else instantly. Anyone could stand for a seat in the legislative body at any time, and all they would need to be seated is a sufficient number of people to assign them their proxy.

-Uwe-
 
   #662  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
I agree too, and I've said it a few times on here before.
Dave: Ooopps ...... I'm not sure if I've thieved your original hypothesis, or if it's a case of "great minds think alike" (let's not entertain the other part of that adage about when fools differ)!

If the former, then my apology for the plagiarism - it was entirely unintentional. Please consider my faux-pas as the greatest form of flattery (another cliche).

If the latter - then I'm honored to be in such intellectual company!!

Don
 
Last edited:
   #663  

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
Some people think that preferential voting systems such as "ranked choice" would fix this, but I'm not at all convinced. If I was starting form scratch, designing a representative republic in the 21st century, I would have a fixed number of representatives, all "elected" at large, and individuals could change who is representing them at any time. Representatives would be proxies for individuals, and if you find yourself in disagreement with your representative over an issue that's important to you, you could pull your proxy from him and give it to someone else instantly. Anyone could stand for a seat in the legislative body at any time, and all they would need to be seated is a sufficient number of people to assign them their proxy.
Okay, so direct democracy at a national level, but with extra middlemen in case you don't feel like paying attention to every vote.

If the population of the USA were used in this hypothetical example, this proposal would transfer ALL meaningful power to the population centers. Knowing what I know of your views, I don't think that's in your interest. I can't say I've enjoyed my time being held hostage by the flyover states, but I don't think minority viewpoints should be completely ignored. Tyranny of the majority is only marginally better than tyranny of the minority, and neither is desirable.

The instantaneous aspect would be the end of any long-term planning. It would also erase any ability to cast certain votes which might be difficult/unpopular but also necessary and correct.
 
   #664  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
I don't think it will end anywhere that there are just one or two "representatives" for a particular geographic area with first-past-the-post voting. Here In the USA, we have 535 congressional districts, each with exactly one Representative, and 50 states, each with exactly two Senators. This makes it nearly impossible for anyone who isn't running as a candidate from one of the two main parties to get their foot in the door. It also means a goodly portion of of the population in each district -- those who voted for the loser(s) -- have no representation, at least for that term. The UK's House of Commons has the same issue; 650 single-member constituencies.

Places where there are more than two parties tend to have systems where at least some of the representation is "at large"; where candidates and/or parties with as little as a sin us gle-digit vote totals still end up as representatives. This means voters don't see it as "throwing away" their vote if they don't vote for one of the top two parties.

Some people think that preferential voting systems such as "ranked choice" would fix this, but I'm not at all convinced. If I was starting form scratch, designing a representative republic in the 21st century, I would have a fixed number of representatives, all "elected" at large, and individuals could change who is representing them at any time. Representatives would be proxies for individuals, and if you find yourself in disagreement with your representative over an issue that's important to you, you could pull your proxy from him and give it to someone else instantly. Anyone could stand for a seat in the legislative body at any time, and all they would need to be seated is a sufficient number of people to assign them their proxy.

-Uwe-
hmm............not sure that the issue for the 2 x party system is just a matter of how members in either house are elected (in Governments that have 2 x houses)! At question also must be how the head-of-State is elected and more importantly (IMO) how the outcome of this process integrates with the relationship of the Country's leader with the members of the houses. Your system has independent processes and this results in both advantages and disadvantages - but the election of the head of State in other countries is different

I agree with your uncertainty regarding preferential voting. We have this system for our upper house and it has evolved into a farce where Senate members can be elected with a very small amount of primary votes - via the distribution of preferences of other candidates (it has even generated new enterprises called "preference whisperers")

I'm also uncertain about your proposal for a "representative republic in the 21st century". One of the must-haves in any successful government is stability between election cycles. If I understand your proposal correctly - the ability of voters to withdraw their support for a sitting member would (I suspect) wreak havoc on the normal process of law making because house members are continuously changing!

But it's easy for me to criticize any proposal - and not to suggest an alternative!

However, a far more important aspect of your reply and at the heart of my concern about your response is the part that I have bolded. IMO, this sentiment crystallizes the fundamental problem discussed in earlier posts about the polarization of political views and the question of the usefulness of 2 x party systems in 21st century.

The idea that elected members only represent their voters is fundamentally inconsistent with the system for democratic voting which assumes that the elected member represents the entire constituency in their area. For as long as this dichotomy exists (or more importantly, for as long as the perception that the dichotomy exists amongst voters) - the democracy cannot (and must not) succeed because it fails to be representative!!

As indicated in earlier posts, this new construct is the evolutionary religion that seems to be pervading (infecting) modern democracies; and as I have said, it's driven largely by the clear message from political parties themselves.

If you and your fellow voters hold firm to your view (in the bolded bit), then the 21 century voting method has to accommodate this new democratic paradigm. Not sure how this is done - or even if it can be done (might be easier to change voter belief - perhaps?)

Don
 
Last edited:
   #666  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,503
Reaction score
21,758
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #667  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,718
Reaction score
8,811
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
   #668  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,718
Reaction score
8,811
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
   #673  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,718
Reaction score
8,811
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
   #676  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,503
Reaction score
21,758
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001

-Uwe-
 
   #677  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,718
Reaction score
8,811
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
/\

Will people indeed vote Democrat Tuesday and a blue wave is upon us by tsunami and civil war on Wed?

Walmart is stocking guns and ammo again huh, wonder why?
 
   #678  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Uwe: I had a 4:08 minute cringe as I watched the video; such sincerity is seldom seen in an advertisement (not)!:D

I suspect that you are confusing the normal usage of the term "honest" with it's use as "politically honest" - seems to be very different!!

Don
 
   #679  

BavarianCare

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
52
Reaction score
15
Location
Ireland
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=11022
Didn't they say that in 2016 too?



-Uwe-
57,000 people (allegedly)
CBS have said Trump needs an election day 'surge' to win
I kinda think that there will be a surge...
'Peaceful Protests' as they are reported over here will get Trump over the line IMO
 
Top