Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What do you mean by washouts?

I mean that they're not legitimately free elections. The outcome is effectively decided by the party establishment even if a popular vote takes place. Minority opinions in the party will never have a chance at victory.

[Helgoland]

What do you mean by washouts?

I mean that they're not legitimately free elections. The outcome is effectively decided by the party establishment even if a popular vote takes place. Minority opinions in the party will never have a chance at victory.

MSH, I edited my last post extensively, explaining why your concerns are valid, but also are being adressed.
Also, what's the alternative to party lists that doesn't result in gerrymandering becoming a problem?

[kaian-a-coel]

Was that a comedy show?

[Sheb]

How is the outcome decided by party bosses? I mean, of the top of my head, I can think of half a dozen primaries where the "establishment" candidate lost. Just look at Hillary Clinto loosing to Obama in '08.

[mainiac]

It still puts the power to decide upon elected officials in the hands of party bosses. I'd prefer the US not return to the era of Boss Tweed, thanks.

Except from experience we can say that's not true.

I can get people being suspicious about something that hasn't been tried before.  But when it has been tried before, extensively, and their fears are unjustified...

[FearfulJesuit]

Candidate selection in the 19th century was almost without exception by caucus, not primary.

[misko27]

Was that a comedy show?

Yes, though the interviewees were genuine. Check the rest of the internet, Politico has a few statements from the guy saying he "stands by his comments".

Anyway, in America there is simply a tradition of voting directly for a candidate that doesn't exist elsewhere. There are unaffiliated members of Congress, what happens to them? Plus, the politics of the US is person-driven, not party driven, as if both parties were monolithic there would never be much debate. They are wide arrays, holding a dizzying number of opinions under a single banner. There are no monoliths. There are centrist, hell comparitvely liberal republicans up here (how do you think Republicans won the NYC mayoral race 5 terms in a row?), that can still represent an opposition. The US would do better if it could somehow do away with the idea of party loyalty entirely, as it has been proven recently to be poisonous, but it's impossible to remove parties entirely, and a single party wouldn't have any reason to stay a single party if it was so broadly based.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not necessarily impossible. Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature, for example.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's not necessarily impossible. Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature, for example.

Are you confusing nonpartisan with unicameral? Last I checked Nebraska's legislature had partisan lines.

[lue]

The problem with gerrymandering is that it is a decent idea taken to its corrupt conclusion.

The decent idea is that people should be grouped by population density so that rural areas can get a representative who actually cares about their votes. Otherwise you'd get situations where a bunch of people are basically ignored because no politician is going to worry about people who only make up a small percentage of their voting base. So, in theory, you'd have larger rural areas districted together (by total population) with much smaller urban districts and each district is then at least halfway reasonably represented.

Get a variation of the German system - voting districts elect direct candidates, and lists of people provided by the parties are used to add seats so that power distribution in the house corresponds to the popular vote. That even allows for third-party candidates to get into congress without winning a direct mandate!

MMPR for the win! The only bad thing I hear about it for America is that it makes parties a technically "official" part of the political system, which no other part of the political system does, to my knowledge.

But on the other hand, who seriously thinks we might just get rid of political parties "any time now"? And I don't think the FEC or related suddenly wanting candidate lists makes parties any more official than they already are.

So... bump the number of seats in the HoR to 436, then use half for direct candidates, and half for party? I think that sounds good. We also need overhang seats built... (I'm suggesting HoR over Senate because the HoR is supposed to be a representation of the people, and MMPR is supposed to do that awesomely.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not necessarily impossible. Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature, for example.

Are you confusing nonpartisan with unicameral? Last I checked Nebraska's legislature had partisan lines.

It is both nonpartisan and unicameral.

[RedKing]

It's "nonpartisan", but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on it, all but one of the 49 members do have a party affiliation of either Democrat or Republican. And the Democrats are overwhelmingly concentrated in Omaha or Lincoln (the only two cities of more than 51,000 in the entire state).

Likewise, NC judicial elections are technically nonpartisan but candidates frequently dog-whistle their party affiliation by touting their "conservative" or "social justice" credentials. And they tend to receive partisan endorsements. (Don't ask me why we elect judges in the first place.)

[SealyStar]

It's "nonpartisan", but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on it, all but one of the 49 members do have a party affiliation of either Democrat or Republican. And the Democrats are overwhelmingly concentrated in Omaha or Lincoln (the only two cities of more than 51,000 in the entire state).

Likewise, NC judicial elections are technically nonpartisan but candidates frequently dog-whistle their party affiliation by touting their "conservative" or "social justice" credentials. And they tend to receive partisan endorsements. (Don't ask me why we elect judges in the first place.)

A lot of elections are "non-partisan". My town, for example, is electing a new mayor this fall, and we actually have a mayor with a real job. It's theoretically "non-partisan", but both candidates are touting their business experience and support from the Michigan Right-to-Life PAC or whatever. So, really, it's like a primary election for a certain party which espouses these views that shall not be named.

[RedKing]

It's "nonpartisan", but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on it, all but one of the 49 members do have a party affiliation of either Democrat or Republican. And the Democrats are overwhelmingly concentrated in Omaha or Lincoln (the only two cities of more than 51,000 in the entire state).

Likewise, NC judicial elections are technically nonpartisan but candidates frequently dog-whistle their party affiliation by touting their "conservative" or "social justice" credentials. And they tend to receive partisan endorsements. (Don't ask me why we elect judges in the first place.)

A lot of elections are "non-partisan". My town, for example, is electing a new mayor this fall, and we actually have a mayor with a real job. It's theoretically "non-partisan", but both candidates are touting their business experience and support from the Michigan Right-to-Life PAC or whatever. So, really, it's like a primary election for a certain party which espouses these views that shall not be named.

Exactly. Just as gerrymandering is illegal, and yet everyone does it with a wink and a nod. Or how SuperPACs aren't allowed to coordinate with campaigns, but everyone knows they do. It's convenient fiction.

[lue]

It's "nonpartisan", but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on it, all but one of the 49 members do have a party affiliation of either Democrat or Republican. And the Democrats are overwhelmingly concentrated in Omaha or Lincoln (the only two cities of more than 51,000 in the entire state).

Likewise, NC judicial elections are technically nonpartisan but candidates frequently dog-whistle their party affiliation by touting their "conservative" or "social justice" credentials. And they tend to receive partisan endorsements. (Don't ask me why we elect judges in the first place.)

A lot of elections are "non-partisan". My town, for example, is electing a new mayor this fall, and we actually have a mayor with a real job. It's theoretically "non-partisan", but both candidates are touting their business experience and support from the Michigan Right-to-Life PAC or whatever. So, really, it's like a primary election for a certain party which espouses these views that shall not be named.

Exactly. Just as gerrymandering is illegal, and yet everyone does it with a wink and a nod. Or how SuperPACs aren't allowed to coordinate with campaigns, but everyone knows they do. It's convenient fiction.

Hey, just because Jon Stewart just so happens to watch the Colbert Report when Colbert just so happens to be talking about things he'd like to do for his campaign had he a SuperPAC, doesn't mean Jon is coordinating with Stephen.