ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th December 2019, 05:19 PM   #1
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
The United States government needs major restructuring.

The original Constitution has always been a document with flaws. It is amazing that it has lasted for 230 years. And while I think a perfect Constitutional government is impossible, I believe ours requires major restructuring.

For example, twice in the last twenty years, the loser in the popular vote won the Presidential election due to the electoral college. We have issues with gerrymandering, voter suppression as well as urgan states be underrepresented.

I would argue that the US government be overhauled in its entirety. I believe we should move to a parliamentary system and get rid of state governments entirely and possibly implement maybe regional governments. However, if we keep our present system, at a minimum we should eliminate the electoral college and probably the Senate.

Our present system gives small states far too much power. The nation kowtows to the needs of Oklahoma, Montana and Idaho while at the same time ignoring New York and California.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:21 PM   #2
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,964
"Buuuuuut the heartland and real America and those big city liburl elitist..."

(For the record I agree with you 100%, but this is going to be a slow process, not a revolution.)
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:34 PM   #3
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,921
I'd go for 13 regional assemblies (because you can tie it into our origins as 13 colonies for "marketing" purposes) and a federal parliament. A non-FPTP electoral model would be a must.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:39 PM   #4
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Buuuuuut the heartland and real America and those big city liburl elitist..."

(For the record I agree with you 100%, but this is going to be a slow process, not a revolution.)
It's going to have to be a revolution and not a slow process. The only way I see this kind of restructuring happening is for there to be a Constitutional Convention and even then it seems unlikely. I guarantee Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Alaska have no desire to give up the power they wield.

That said, our present system is just wrong.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:44 PM   #5
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,964
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's going to have to be a revolution and not a slow process. The only way I see this kind of restructuring happening is for there to be a Constitutional Convention and even then it seems unlikely. I guarantee Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Alaska have no desire to give up the power they wield.

That said, our present system is just wrong.
I would, again, propose the Interstate Popular Vote Contract as a possible alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:53 PM   #6
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's going to have to be a revolution and not a slow process. The only way I see this kind of restructuring happening is for there to be a Constitutional Convention and even then it seems unlikely. I guarantee Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Alaska have no desire to give up the power they wield.

That said, our present system is just wrong.
People need to move from Cali and New York to states like Montana and Wyoming. Most likely at retirement age . Then vote in legislators that will amend the Constitution to a popular vote. That is the only way it will ever change. Violent revolution??? Uhh who has the guns?
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:56 PM   #7
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I would, again, propose the Interstate Popular Vote Contract as a possible alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY
I'm well aware of that. But that only addresses the Presidency. At least as big a problem are the 300 plus House bills getting nowhere in the Senate not to mention the power these small state Senators have on the judiciary.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:59 PM   #8
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,438
I totally agree but don't see it happening. The great plains of the United States has seen steady depopulation for that last 100 years and will continue to do so for the next 100 years. This imbalance was recognized and understood at the founding of our country so the compromise was the balance between Congress and the Senate but this imbalance has only worsened. I do think there is some merit to our system, but to a much smaller degree than it is practiced, in that there really is a conflict between rural and urban America. My next-door neighbor may be a different ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. but the results of our voting and its results will be basically felt the same. Rural voters on the other hand, have fundamentally different stakes and interests. They don't want to pay taxes for light rail for the city slickers, or have regulations that disallow the use of herbicides, and so on. Unlike identity politics, they genuinely have separate political interests. I'm not sure how to resolve that, I'm just saying they exist.
portlandatheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:59 PM   #9
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,964
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
People need to move from Cali and New York to states like Montana and Wyoming. Most likely at retirement age . Then vote in legislators that will amend the Constitution to a popular vote. That is the only way it will ever change. Violent revolution??? Uhh who has the guns?
The United States is getting more urban, not more rural. Unless these issues are addressed a hundred North Dakota Ranchers are going to have to political power of tens of thousands of inner city people.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:01 PM   #10
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
People need to move from Cali and New York to states like Montana and Wyoming. Most likely at retirement age . Then vote in legislators that will amend the Constitution to a popular vote. That is the only way it will ever change. Violent revolution??? Uhh who has the guns?
I'm not sure it requires violence as much as it requires the Big urban states together declaring enough is enough and if need be threatening succession. For example, I was thinking of California, Oregon and Washington State together threatening succession.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:02 PM   #11
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The United States is getting more urban, not more rural. Unless these issues are addressed a hundred North Dakota Ranchers are going to have to political power of tens of thousands of inner city people.
They almost already do.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:07 PM   #12
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,964
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
They almost already do.
Indeed. In the other thread I was talking about Senators, not EC votes but the basic principle is still valid.

Kamala Harris and Diane Fienstein each represent 19.78 million people.

John Barrasso and Mike Enzi each represent 288,868.

19 million people is the population of Romania or Chilie.

288,868 is about 110,00 fewer people then you can fit into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway when they open the infield for seating.

These people should not have equal political power in any sanely run system and this should not be a controversial opinion.

And no the Senate/House compromise is not the answer. The answer to unfairness is not to make two equal systems, one fair and one unfair so everybody wins

This is not acceptable in a democracy.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th December 2019 at 06:14 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:08 PM   #13
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not sure it requires violence as much as it requires the Big urban states together declaring enough is enough and if need be threatening succession. For example, I was thinking of California, Oregon and Washington State together threatening succession.
A) we kinda fought a war over a States right to secede. And b) the right would be probably be all for it. They stupidly and stubbornly won't admit the left coast is a net asset to the US.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:13 PM   #14
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I totally agree but don't see it happening. The great plains of the United States has seen steady depopulation for that last 100 years and will continue to do so for the next 100 years. This imbalance was recognized and understood at the founding of our country so the compromise was the balance between Congress and the Senate but this imbalance has only worsened. I do think there is some merit to our system, but to a much smaller degree than it is practiced, in that there really is a conflict between rural and urban America. My next-door neighbor may be a different ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. but the results of our voting and its results will be basically felt the same. Rural voters on the other hand, have fundamentally different stakes and interests. They don't want to pay taxes for light rail for the city slickers, or have regulations that disallow the use of herbicides, and so on. Unlike identity politics, they genuinely have separate political interests. I'm not sure how to resolve that, I'm just saying they exist.
It's just special pleading though. Their political interests deserve as much attention as mine, or my neighbours The rural/urban divide has nothing to with the original compromise anyways. Virginia had the largest population when the Constitution was adopted, even though it was pretty much just plantations.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:14 PM   #15
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I totally agree but don't see it happening. The great plains of the United States has seen steady depopulation for that last 100 years and will continue to do so for the next 100 years. This imbalance was recognized and understood at the founding of our country so the compromise was the balance between Congress and the Senate but this imbalance has only worsened. I do think there is some merit to our system, but to a much smaller degree than it is practiced, in that there really is a conflict between rural and urban America. My next-door neighbor may be a different ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. but the results of our voting and its results will be basically felt the same. Rural voters on the other hand, have fundamentally different stakes and interests. They don't want to pay taxes for light rail for the city slickers, or have regulations that disallow the use of herbicides, and so on. Unlike identity politics, they genuinely have separate political interests. I'm not sure how to resolve that, I'm just saying they exist.
There is no question that. rural citizens face entirely different issues than urban citizens. But our present system allows them to dominate the discourse. It's why Trump and the GOP bailed out farmers as a result of Trump's trade war and ignored the urban damages.

Three hundred bills sit on McConnell's desk because of the power of rural America. Guns are not as much a problem in Montana than in Chicago. Housing is not an issue as much in Tennessee than it is in NY or California. I don't believe we should ignore the needs of ranchers and farmers and there is little evidence they are in States that are diverse like Washington, Oregon or California. In Washington State for example, its urban areas consistently send its tax dollars to rural areas. Rural counties get much more in tax dollars than they are taxed.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 29th December 2019 at 06:22 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 06:50 PM   #16
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,057
Not likely to happen. For historical and cultural reasons we're stuck with 50 states or more, not fewer. The only way we'd restructure is if we expand greatly and therefore feel compelled to divide what is currently America from the new acquisitions. Then we might be okay with rolling up some of the current divisions. In other words, we'll only merge things if it makes separating them from other things easier.

For example, if we survive WWIII and decide on union with Canada, Mexico, and Burkina Faso we'd merge a bunch of US states in order to simplify things while creating division between the ten American prefectures and the two Canadian and three Mexican and one African prefecture.

But it wouldn't last long, the jihad launched by the Cult of JoJo Siwa would wipe us all out. That girl just won't stop until she gets her hands on that amulet and opens the Gates of Chaos, bless her heart or thorax-adjacent ichor-pumping mechanism. The evangelicals were right to fear the sigil of the rainbow, but not because of anything gay-related.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 07:09 PM   #17
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,887
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not likely to happen. For historical and cultural reasons we're stuck with 50 states or more, not fewer. The only way we'd restructure is if we expand greatly and therefore feel compelled to divide what is currently America from the new acquisitions. Then we might be okay with rolling up some of the current divisions. In other words, we'll only merge things if it makes separating them from other things easier.

For example, if we survive WWIII and decide on union with Canada, Mexico, and Burkina Faso we'd merge a bunch of US states in order to simplify things while creating division between the ten American prefectures and the two Canadian and three Mexican and one African prefecture.

But it wouldn't last long, the jihad launched by the Cult of JoJo Siwa would wipe us all out. That girl just won't stop until she gets her hands on that amulet and opens the Gates of Chaos, bless her heart or thorax-adjacent ichor-pumping mechanism. The evangelicals were right to fear the sigil of the rainbow, but not because of anything gay-related.
I'm done saying something is never going to happen. I never thought the country would elect a racist moron as President. But we did.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 08:05 PM   #18
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
I have never been a fan of the electoral college, and in fact I always assumed that as soon as the "wrong" guy got elected president, it would be disposed of. I hadn't really thought all the way through why it won't be. It won't be, because no matter what happens, one side or the other will see that the change will strip away some power from it, and send it to the other party.

In general, electoral policies are very hard to change because the people who won the election have to change the system that allowed them to win the election.

So, this is all academic, but that's ok. Heck, I once started a thread about what you would do with time travel, and changing the electoral college is slightly more likely than inventing a time machine, so let's go with it.

Anyway, I never liked it, for all of the obvious reasons, but the election of Donald Trump has shown me a good reason to dislike it even more. No, it's not because Trump got elected. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump, specifically. It would apply to any president who got an electoral college majority without receiving a popular vote majority.

The problem is that any president who got elected when the other candidate obviously received more votes is that the elected president would seem somehow illegitimate to a lot of the voters. That's bad. That's actually very bad. We ought to be able to look at the guy in the White House and say that, regardless of whether I voted for him, the people spoke and chose their leader, and so that's that.

That's not really "fair", whatever that means. Trump, or some hypothetical future minority candidate, played by the rules and won. He ought to be considered the president, elected by the people. However, there's a sizable faction who think that his election was somehow tainted because Hillary Clinton got more votes. No good can come out of having that sizable faction thinking that way.

In a way, what I am saying is that we ought to change the rules because there are sore losers who can't accept the outcome of the election. Yes, that's correct. There's something awkward about that. We don't like to reward sore losers, but this system guarantees that there will always be sore losers, and a fair number of them. The electoral college was a political system designed by a committee trying to reach too many compromises. It's time for it to go.


(Well, not quite time. I'm enough of a stickler for the rules that I don't think we ought to change them for 2020, even if it were politically feasible to do so. The campaign is underway played by the rules as they are. 2024, though, is the right time.)


Oh....and as long as we are changing the whole system of elections, can we get rid of the system that makes Iowa so darned important? We have ethanol subsidies because anyone who wants to become president doesn't dare say we ought to get rid of them. That's not right.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 08:12 PM   #19
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
As for the possibility of a parliamentary system, I don't like it. I like divided government.

What I would really like is some means of encouraging congresscritters to not vote along party lines. I don't know how to do that, though.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:15 PM   #20
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
Oh....one other thing I hate about the electoral college. It makes an awful lot of people feel like their vote doesn't matter, even more than the fact that they are only one vote out of 300,000,000.

If you are a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Utah, you could easily be forgiven if you felt like there was no point in voting for president. Every vote ought to matter. Every vote ought to count.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:28 PM   #21
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh....one other thing I hate about the electoral college. It makes an awful lot of people feel like their vote doesn't matter, even more than the fact that they are only one vote out of 300,000,000.

If you are a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Utah, you could easily be forgiven if you felt like there was no point in voting for president. Every vote ought to matter. Every vote ought to count.
This is only a problem if you believe that the people elect the President, they don't, and never have. The President is elected by the States, it is the Congress that the people elect.

This is the way it was set up to be;

The People choose the Legislative Branch.
The States choose the Executive Branch.
The Executive and Legislative Branches choose the Judicial Branch.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:37 PM   #22
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is only a problem if you believe that the people elect the President, they don't, and never have. The President is elected by the States, it is the Congress that the people elect.

This is the way it was set up to be;

The People choose the Legislative Branch.
The States choose the Executive Branch.
The Executive and Legislative Branches choose the Judicial Branch.
Enough with these reification fallacies.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:48 PM   #23
BrooklynBaby
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The original Constitution has always been a document with flaws. It is amazing that it has lasted for 230 years. And while I think a perfect Constitutional government is impossible, I believe ours requires major restructuring.

For example, twice in the last twenty years, the loser in the popular vote won the Presidential election due to the electoral college. We have issues with gerrymandering, voter suppression as well as urgan states be underrepresented.

I would argue that the US government be overhauled in its entirety. I believe we should move to a parliamentary system and get rid of state governments entirely and possibly implement maybe regional governments. However, if we keep our present system, at a minimum we should eliminate the electoral college and probably the Senate.

Our present system gives small states far too much power. The nation kowtows to the needs of Oklahoma, Montana and Idaho while at the same time ignoring New York and California.
The electoral college isn't a flaw, it's one of the many compromises that were necessary to form the union.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:49 PM   #24
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,558
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I would argue that the US government be overhauled in its entirety. I believe we should move to a parliamentary system and get rid of state governments entirely and possibly implement maybe regional governments. However, if we keep our present system, at a minimum we should eliminate the electoral college and probably the Senate.
Problems with one system of government do not mean that the exact opposite system is better. You are basically arguing for a system where the government only panders to heavily populated areas and leaves the rest of the country in the doldrums.

I agree that ditching FPTP in favour of MMP would be a big improvement. I don't know what changing to a parliamentary system would achieve.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 10:01 PM   #25
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Enough with these reification fallacies.
It's not a reification fallacy, it's spelled out in the US Constitution.

Article 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

The 17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Article 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 10:12 PM   #26
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Problems with one system of government do not mean that the exact opposite system is better. You are basically arguing for a system where the government only panders to heavily populated areas and leaves the rest of the country in the doldrums.

I agree that ditching FPTP in favour of MMP would be a big improvement. I don't know what changing to a parliamentary system would achieve.
Trust me, as someone from one of the two countries operating under the system, there are far better proportional systems out there. For instance STV.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 11:44 PM   #27
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,558
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Trust me, as someone from one of the two countries operating under the system, there are far better proportional systems out there. For instance STV.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
It is not clear from your post but that system is actually Proportional Representation using multi-member electorates. In Tasmania where this system is used, it is known as the "Hare-Clarke" system.

AFAIK you are from NZ and I haven't heard any complaints abouts NZ's MMP system before. There is no reason why you couldn't use STV/PR for both the single electorate and the party vote but I doubt it would make a big difference to the representation in Parliament.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 11:59 PM   #28
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is only a problem if you believe that the people elect the President, they don't, and never have. The President is elected by the States, it is the Congress that the people elect.

This is the way it was set up to be;

The People choose the Legislative Branch.
The States choose the Executive Branch.
The Executive and Legislative Branches choose the Judicial Branch.
Well of course that's the way it is, but it isn't a good way.

It was fine in a fledgling republic, which was kind of a new thing, and where compromises were necessary to satisfy the powers that be and the old order, but for today, I think it would be better if the people chose the executive branch.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 01:43 AM   #29
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is not clear from your post but that system is actually Proportional Representation using multi-member electorates. In Tasmania where this system is used, it is known as the "Hare-Clarke" system.

AFAIK you are from NZ and I haven't heard any complaints abouts NZ's MMP system before. There is no reason why you couldn't use STV/PR for both the single electorate and the party vote but I doubt it would make a big difference to the representation in Parliament.
The biggest complaint are the party lists. There is no say over who is on them, and a MP that had performed poorly can be voted out in their electorate, but if they are high enough on the list they can still get back in. This means that voters feel less empowered as to the selection of the actual MPs themselves.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 01:46 AM   #30
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Well of course that's the way it is, but it isn't a good way.

It was fine in a fledgling republic, which was kind of a new thing, and where compromises were necessary to satisfy the powers that be and the old order, but for today, I think it would be better if the people chose the executive branch.
Which would involve changing the Constitution. It would also result in all of the power being put in the hands of the people, which might or might not be a good thing. It would likely see more cases of one party controlling all of the branches however, and that is probably not entirely a good thing in a system that was built on the basis of people working with each other rather than one side controlling everything.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 01:58 AM   #31
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,558
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The biggest complaint are the party lists. There is no say over who is on them, and a MP that had performed poorly can be voted out in their electorate, but if they are high enough on the list they can still get back in. This means that voters feel less empowered as to the selection of the actual MPs themselves.
That would be true if you were only casting a party vote (like in the Netherlands). In multi-member electorates, the candidates and the order that they are listed are always chosen by the party and that is the order in which they are always elected.

However, in NZ, two thirds of the MPs are from single member electorates where you do have a choice. In fact, you have the option of voting for your favourite local candidate then voting for the opposite party in the party vote.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 02:16 AM   #32
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,821
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That would be true if you were only casting a party vote (like in the Netherlands). In multi-member electorates, the candidates and the order that they are listed are always chosen by the party and that is the order in which they are always elected.

However, in NZ, two thirds of the MPs are from single member electorates where you do have a choice. In fact, you have the option of voting for your favourite local candidate then voting for the opposite party in the party vote.
It's true either way, and while you could do that, most people want the same party or at least one that will ally with their party of their local MP. Vote splitting is more common in voting for a local MP from a minor party and then voting for the major party they would form an alliance with.

The major issue that most have with MMP comes from having the lists and having no say on who is on them ad thus exactly who gets into Parliament. It is a downfall of the system. Whether you consider it a big one or not I guess is up to you, but most complaints I hear about MMP in NZ revolve about it. The second biggest complaint would be the 5%/1 seat issue, and manipulation of electorate seats to over gain the system.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 03:04 AM   #33
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,582
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Problems with one system of government do not mean that the exact opposite system is better. You are basically arguing for a system where the government only panders to heavily populated areas and leaves the rest of the country in the doldrums.

I agree that ditching FPTP in favour of MMP would be a big improvement. I don't know what changing to a parliamentary system would achieve.
But the consequences of giving greater influence to less populated areas is the minority of people are getting their policy preferences over the majority. If you dislike the idea of simple majority rule, it seems you would like minority rule even less.

It can make sense if the default represented some neutral position. But the default is often a policy position.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 03:37 AM   #34
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,558
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But the consequences of giving greater influence to less populated areas is the minority of people are getting their policy preferences over the majority.
Pish Posh! The bulk of congress people still come from the bigger states such as California, New York and Texas. And there is no permanent Republican bias in the Senate.

At most, the current system prevents politicians from pretending the small states don't exist at election time.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 03:48 AM   #35
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,582
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Pish Posh! The bulk of congress people still come from the bigger states such as California, New York and Texas. And there is no permanent Republican bias in the Senate.

At most, the current system prevents politicians from pretending the small states don't exist at election time.
What is wrong with ignoring small states? Less people live there. Again, why should a less popular viewpoint get greater influence relative to their size?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 05:42 AM   #36
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Which would involve changing the Constitution.
Well, yes. That's kind of the point of the thread. So, it's an academic exercise, since it won't happen, but "major restructuring", or even the less drastic minor restructuring of eliminating the electoral college, would require constitutional amendment.

Quote:
It would also result in all of the power being put in the hands of the people, which might or might not be a good thing. It would likely see more cases of one party controlling all of the branches however, and that is probably not entirely a good thing in a system that was built on the basis of people working with each other rather than one side controlling everything.

I don't think this is correct at all. We already have eliminated the old way of doing things, which was to have state legislators vote for senators, and to have electors voted for in any way the state governments chose. Today, every state uses direct election. Most use a "winner take all" system, but two (Nebraska and Maine) can split electoral votes by congressional districts. However, the people, collectively, don't hold any less power in today's system when compared to a direct popular vote for president. It's just that in the current system, some people have a bit more power than others.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 05:48 AM   #37
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
One question. Is there any nation outside of the United States where there is a bicameral legislature, and where both houses of the legislature wield significant power.


i.e. I know that Britain has a House of Lords and a House of Commons, and I know that the House of Lords can fiddle with legislation a little bit, but when all is said and done, the House of Commons is where the real power lies, with the monarch and the House of Lords having just a tiny bit of influence.

In the USA, the House and the Senate each have a great deal of power, and one of them can block the other, and that frequently happens when, as now, the two houses are controlled by different parties.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 06:14 AM   #38
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,699
Other than the stuff that's clearly broken, of course, such as gerrymandering, I would first of all do away with the norm that 100% of electors in each state vote for one candidate, regardless of how many voted for them. For example, that if 70% vote for candidate A and 30% for candidate B, A gets 100% of the electors instead of 70%.

I say norm because it seems optional for states to do it this way and some already already do the more logical thing and give electors to both candidates based on how many votes they actually received.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 06:15 AM   #39
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,964
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
At most, the current system prevents politicians from pretending the small states don't exist at election time.
Nonsense. More mythology about "protecting the small states" that isn't what the Electoral College actually does or what it was intended to do.

94% of campaign events in 2016 happened in just 12 states.

Florida got 71 campaign visits combined from the two major candidates; North Carolina got 55, Pennsylvania got 54, Ohio got 48. None of them are "small states."

25 states did not receive a single campaign visit and Rhode Island, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, and Hawaii, 9 of the 10 least populated states, are on that list.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2019, 06:16 AM   #40
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,726
While we're doing major restructuring, there's one thing I consider truly horrible about the way we do things in America. In the legislature, we have a system where, effectively, the leader of the party that is in control of one house of the legislature can effectively kill any legislation he wants to without ever voting on it. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate can, for all practical purposes, prevent a vote from ever taking place if they don't want a particular bill.

It puts incredible power into one person's hands, it subverts democracy, and it encourages party line voting instead of congressmen and senators voting their consciences. I don't even know how to go about fixing it, though.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.