Print

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

[smjjames]

Which is why we have to find some sort of balance. However, we're the only country in the world that even has this system, it's completely unique.

So, non-US Bay12ers, I wonder how other countries have it, when politicians in your countries campaign, do they generally focus on the most populated areas of the country or do they pretty much campaign everywhere?

You're not, Belgium use a complicated system but basically the result of the vote is not proportional to the popular vote to account for the French minority.

German federal election weight its votes too, and the number of sieges won decide the weight that you will have in the government, so it's pretty much the same concept.
The formulation of the question show that Americans are being sadly mislead on how the rest of the world's electoral system works.

Edit : damnit wrong quote

Not misled, just ignorant on how it works elsewhere in the world, at least in my case. Though, to be fair, there is some misled because this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_country shows the US as being the only one, pretty sure Pakistan and India do it by legislature. edit: And Germany, but I guess it's the ambiguousity there.

Belgium is a weird critter itself however.

'number of sieges won' Um, I'm not sure what you mean by siege, but I'm pretty sure they don't wage war with each other to determine that in Germany.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Which is why we have to find some sort of balance. However, we're the only country in the world that even has this system, it's completely unique.

So, non-US Bay12ers, I wonder how other countries have it, when politicians in your countries campaign, do they generally focus on the most populated areas of the country or do they pretty much campaign everywhere?

You're not, Belgium use a complicated system but basically the result of the vote is not proportional to the popular vote to account for the French minority.

German federal election weight its votes too, and the number of sieges won decide the weight that you will have in the government, so it's pretty much the same concept.
The formulation of the question show that Americans are being sadly mislead on how the rest of the world's electoral system works.

Edit : damnit wrong quote

Wait, in Germany, cities get more votes if they have defeated more attacking armies?

AWESOME

[Shadowlord]

You spelled weird wrong...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's defensive pagans for you, get an infestation going and you'll never be rid of them.

[smjjames]

You spelled weird wrong...

Whatever....





*fixes it*

[Strife26]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

[scriver]

The US is also the only country made up of 50 states. Most other countries is only one.

[uber pye]

The US is also the only country made up of 50 states. Most other countries is only one.

its also huge and has a crazy amount of different cultures. Most countries are smaller than Texas and almost mono-cultures.

[PTTG??]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

Why do rural states need a handicap? If they want to have more votes, maybe they need to elect competent leaders to make their own homes livable. There's no innate reason that states should be equal. PEOPLE should be equal.

[Shadowlord]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

Why do rural states need a handicap? If they want to have more votes, maybe they need to elect competent leaders to make their own homes livable. There's no innate reason that states should be equal. PEOPLE should be equal.

"Corporations are people, my friend" - Mitt Romney

[TheBiggerFish]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

Why do rural states need a handicap? If they want to have more votes, maybe they need to elect competent leaders to make their own homes livable. There's no innate reason that states should be equal. PEOPLE should be equal.

But that presupposes that competent leaders exist.

[wobbly]

Which is why we have to find some sort of balance. However, we're the only country in the world that even has this system, it's completely unique.

So, non-US Bay12ers, I wonder how other countries have it, when politicians in your countries campaign, do they generally focus on the most populated areas of the country or do they pretty much campaign everywhere?

Pretty much every where with a parliamentary system has "safe seats" & "swing seats". And the party with the most votes nationally isn't necessarily the party that wins the most seats.

[uber pye]

Which is why we have to find some sort of balance. However, we're the only country in the world that even has this system, it's completely unique.

So, non-US Bay12ers, I wonder how other countries have it, when politicians in your countries campaign, do they generally focus on the most populated areas of the country or do they pretty much campaign everywhere?

Pretty much every where with a parliamentary system has "safe seats" & "swing seats". And the party with the most votes nationally isn't necessarily the party that wins the most seats.

CGPGrey did a video on UK terrible election system here

[Strife26]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

Why do rural states need a handicap? If they want to have more votes, maybe they need to elect competent leaders to make their own homes livable. There's no innate reason that states should be equal. PEOPLE should be equal.

There's many reasons why people should not be equal, chiefly because farm states would have very little input into the political process otherwise (even worse than under the electoral college). The concerns of smaller regional areas are important, even if they are outnumbered population-wise. There are very good reasons why the Connecticut Compromise is one of the most important events in the construction of the American political system.

[PTTG??]

Weight of guns and armor is a very suitable basis for weighting votes. It'd effectively give rural votes the power they need to compete with the urbanites while eliminating the goofiness of swing states.

Why do rural states need a handicap? If they want to have more votes, maybe they need to elect competent leaders to make their own homes livable. There's no innate reason that states should be equal. PEOPLE should be equal.

There's many reasons why people should not be equal, chiefly because farm states would have very little input into the political process otherwise (even worse than under the electoral college). The concerns of smaller regional areas are important, even if they are outnumbered population-wise. There are very good reasons why the Connecticut Compromise is one of the most important events in the construction of the American political system.

What are cities going to do with their horrible majority? Construct infrastructure? Enable education? Export manufactured goods?

How is allowing the full expression of the democratic ideal somehow so dangerous that we need to create an artificial bias against the urban population?

There is no reason for the modern united states to abide by the compromises of the 18th century. Those were created to ensure the new nation was made up of the entire colonial population, so that the British wouldn't have a beachhead on the continent. Any other justification is some kind of gibberish that ultimately breaks down to claiming that rural people are somehow superior to those "smug liberal city-folk."