Print

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

[Virex]

Hehe, you should see Bosnia. We had elections last October, and the major parties are still nowhere near forming a government.

You're not the worst in Europe when it comes to that

[Bouchart]

The political problems in Belgium don't get enough press here in the states...

[Willfor]

Most of the political problems happening anywhere except inside the states do not get enough press in the states. There are some notable exceptions, but it's mostly in places the states have soldiers.

Though, I suppose I can't say very much on the issue since Canada has much of the same problem. Only slightly less in scale, actually.

[GlyphGryph]

Man, I will never understand the benefits of that crazy parliamentary system.

Hopefully Egypt decides to go for a REAL Republic rather than the weird eurotypes.

[Phmcw]

The political problems in Belgium don't get enough press here in the states...

That's because nobody actually understand them. Especially not the Belgians.

[Virex]

Oh they understand them already: Enough people disagree with each other to not be able to agree on pressing matters.

Man, I will never understand the benefits of that crazy parliamentary system.

Hopefully Egypt decides to go for a REAL Republic rather than the weird eurotypes.

Like the roundabout way in the US is much better. Hell if a state has 49% democans and 51% republicrats then the republicrats get all the votes even though nearly half the population in the states disagrees with them.

[Puzzlemaker]

So it seems the protesters are being stubborn as donkeys, and insisting on implementing changes now, instead of just... letting the military take control.  Good for them.

[Tilla]

Oh they understand them already: Enough people disagree with each other to not be able to agree on pressing matters.

Man, I will never understand the benefits of that crazy parliamentary system.

Hopefully Egypt decides to go for a REAL Republic rather than the weird eurotypes.

Like the roundabout way in the US is much better. Hell if a state has 49% democans and 51% republicrats then the republicrats get all the votes even though nearly half the population in the states disagrees with them.

Yah, vastly prefer the Parliamentary system here (Canadian). All parties that get a majority in even one riding gets a voice. There are currently 5 major parties that compete regularly.

[lemon10]

So it seems the protesters are being stubborn as donkeys, and insisting on implementing changes now, instead of just... letting the military take control.  Good for them.

One part of me is like "ehhh, this is what the millitary would do if they were planning to take control of the country", while the other part is like "yeah, but its also what they would do if they were planning on turning the country into a military ruled state".

Oh they understand them already: Enough people disagree with each other to not be able to agree on pressing matters.

Man, I will never understand the benefits of that crazy parliamentary system.

Hopefully Egypt decides to go for a REAL Republic rather than the weird eurotypes.

Like the roundabout way in the US is much better. Hell if a state has 49% democans and 51% republicrats then the republicrats get all the votes even though nearly half the population in the states disagrees with them.

Yeah, it is kinda silly and unfair for the political minorities in the state (eg.no green canidate will ever get a senate seat). But the rulez are the rulez.

[Earthquake Damage]

Yeah, it is kinda silly and unfair for the political minorities in the state (eg.no green canidate will ever get a senate seat). But the rulez are the rulez.

No representation for upwards of half the population (in theory -- obviously an extreme hypothetical here, so don't argue that ) is hardly democratic.

Also, rules can be changed.

[lemon10]

Yeah, it is kinda silly and unfair for the political minorities in the state (eg.no green canidate will ever get a senate seat). But the rulez are the rulez.

No representation for upwards of half the population (in theory -- obviously an extreme hypothetical here, so don't argue that ) is hardly democratic.

Also, rules can be changed.

The two groups that have the most to gain from the rules are the democratic party and the republican party, between them they got over 98% of the vote. They aren't going to change it any time soon. In addition, it is part of the constitution and a change that large to the constitution (even though it would make the system more democratic), would be almost impossible to pass. In addition, it would mess up the small population states votes, so i doubt any senators from small population states would be willing to vote yes on it either).

And yeah, it doesn't approach 50% due to the fact that people don't want to waste there vote votting for minor parties.
Although you can do much better/worse then 50% with no representation, if you had 10 candidates, and 1 got 10.1% and the other 9 got 89.9%, then 89.9% of the population would get no representative.
From what i know, i like britains system (people choose a party, and people from that party get into power, and 20% of the vote would get you 20% in parliment)  much better then ours (tiny population states get the same amount of votes as huge population states, large portions of the vote don't matter). Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong about how britians political system works (but i think thats how it works).

[Ibid Straydrink]

In addition, it is part of the constitution and a change that large to the constitution (even though it would make the system more democratic), would be almost impossible to pass. In addition, it would mess up the small population states votes, so i doubt any senators from small population states would be willing to vote yes on it either).
[/quote]

I do not think that I quite follow, what are you referring to here?

[lemon10]

What really matters in the goverment is the senate. Sure i suppose the house, the president and the supreme court is important, but the most important is the senate. The president is less important in that the senate+house can overrule them, and while the supreme court can declare a law unconstitutional, the senate+house can change the constitution. The deciding factor in weather a law will pass is usually the senate.

As it stands now, a vote from a person in wyoming (650 thousand people) is 70 times as strong in determining a senator then a person from california (37 million), since they both got two senators each.
If we changed it to percentage vote determines composition, and we kept it as every state got two senators (and did composition within each state), then we would end up with a 50-50 democrat/republican split senate, in which nothing would EVER get passed.
If we changed it to the whole country gets 100 senators, and percent composition was from the entire country, then each wyoming voter would get the same amount of voting power as a californian. Something that aren't in their best interests. In fact, the top ten states (20% voting power right now) have well over 50% of the population, so they would have by far the largest impact on the new senate, while the bottom 40 states (80% voting power right now), would have less then 50%.
So for any of the smaller states, it wouldn't be in their best interests, while it would be in the best interests of any of the 10 largest states.
But, the smaller states have 80% of the vote, and they are smart enough not to do anything that results in them having a smaller percentage of the vote.

Is that clearer (it might not be, and ill try to explain it again in that case)?

[Ibid Straydrink]

Ah, alright. Although it seemed unlikely, it sounded as though you were suggesting that the two-party system was constitutionally ordained in USA. I was curious to know if that was the case, and where you were deriving it from.

Hey, don't look at me like that! It's the internet; you could be saying anything.

[Strange guy]

From what i know, i like britains system (people choose a party, and people from that party get into power, and 20% of the vote would get you 20% in parliment)  much better then ours (tiny population states get the same amount of votes as huge population states, large portions of the vote don't matter). Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong about how britians political system works (but i think thats how it works).

Britains system for assigning votes to representatives isn't actually that, and is more like the US system, with the difference that the areas getting an MP each are based around getting about the same population size (and from your posts it seems like the different state sizes are a major issue in US politics). However the smallest of the 3 major parties (Liberal Democrats) are pushing for a system like the one you described (proportional representation) using their power of being in a coalition.