Print

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

[Vector]

During the presidency?  He was running the country from south america? 

So I've heard.  I could be wrong.

[Andrew425]

And besides, unless you are doing a write in candidate, the odds are you are voting on the basis of party nomination anyway in a first past the post system.  So even though you have a 'choice', it's just a choice between two guys.

Yeah but in FPTP you can have accountability, which is better then any other system. Also they are likely to live in your area thus care about your issues.

[Osmosis Jones]

Regarding voting systems, I've always wondered why there has to be an ordered ranking system.

To clarify, why must you always vote
A = 1
B = 2
C = 5
D = 3
E = 4

Why not a system like

A = 10
B = 10
C = 0
D = 5
E = 0

where the vote assigned to a party A from a given voter is equal to their ratio of A over total (i.e. 10 / (10 + 10 + 5 + 0 + 0) in the above example)? That way, you could support your preferred parties to the precise degree you wished, and clearly show when you have two equally preferred parties. If you only wish to support one party, you could give your entire vote over.

Admittedly, back in the day when every vote had to be counted manually, this would of been a lot of effort, but we have computers now that can do this all automatically.

While it would be horrible in a FPtP system, this could work in a system where size of vote corresponds to number of seats.

[Leafsnail]

If you only wish to support one party, you could give your entire vote over.

Which everyone would do to avoid splitting the vote.  You'd just tactical vote in the exact same way under this system.

[mainiac]

And besides, unless you are doing a write in candidate, the odds are you are voting on the basis of party nomination anyway in a first past the post system.  So even though you have a 'choice', it's just a choice between two guys.

Yeah but in FPTP you can have accountability, which is better then any other system. Also they are likely to live in your area thus care about your issues.

Not really.  I live in a non competitive district.  It doesn't matter how I vote cause the same guy is gonna win in any year that's not a landslide year.  In a landslide year, it doesn't matter that he lost because the national environment must have been so strongly against his party that control of congress is firmly established regardless of which way his seat goes.

I'm willing to bet that you live in a non competitive district too.  Most Americans live in districts that are non-competitive outside of landslide years.

And a german style system still allows you to have a local candidate to be "accountable" to you for what it's worth.  But it means that if you chose to change your vote it's going to matter regardless of the district you are in.

[andrea]

During the presidency?  He was running the country from south america? 

So I've heard.  I could be wrong.

well, that fancy canal at panama didn't dig itself!

( Although at the moment I can't find any source to quote about him being there. Not any source that you would consider appropriate at least.)

[GlyphGryph]

I would rather vote for a person then a party that chooses someone.

Andrew, no one here is proposing the US move to a parliamentary system. Heck, you can have both a parliamentary system AND first-past-the-post.

The two have nothing to do with each other. I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest, and I'm not entirely sure you do either. You seem to be promoting direct election of representatives (which I wholeheartedly agree with!) over voting for parties, but, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with FTP.

A First Past the Post system is just... bad. The only good quality about it (which is super important if you lived 200+ years ago) is that it is really simple to count at the end. That is, seriously, all it has going for it.

Osmosis, the realities of voting mean your system basically becomes approval voting. Which is still pretty damn good, so no real problem there!

[SalmonGod]

What you said wasn't a governing ideology, it was a vague complaint against bad stuff being bad.  They are non issues politically.  It's like complaining about a doctor who proscribes medicine when you have a fever instead of proscribing that you have a lower temperature.  Then you get a second opinion and he proscribes a different medicine.  Then you bitch about not having any choices.  If there was a third medicine that you are denied by the cruel two doctor system that would be a legitimate complaint.  But what you are asking for is for a doctor to proscribe that you no longer be sick.

It's more like doctor #1 prescribing me medicine that is unnecessarily laced with poisonous chemicals that will slowly kill me, because he has an under-the-table contract with the company that makes said poisonous chemical.  I go to that doctor, because the doctor #2 puts something even worse in the same medicine for the same reason.  There are other doctors, but they're constantly sabotaged by the first two.

You would call doing business with doctor #1 a tactical choice, on the sole basis that he won't kill you as quickly as doctor #2.  I call that meek fatalism.  You should be boycotting.

[mainiac]

I would rather vote for a person then a party that chooses someone.

Andrew, no one here is proposing the US move to a parliamentary system.

Personally, I'd support that 110%.  Our system is like a marriage councilor, blaming everyone for the problems equally, when we need a divorce court, where someone is given custody and responsibility.  The parliamentary system creates that sense of ownership and means the voters know who to blame when things go to hell.

You might say that it's good that the system is like a marriage councilor because we need to get along and be bipartisan.  But it's possible to have an amicable divorce where the two parties cut a mutually acceptable agreement.  It's not possible for marriage counselling succeed if the two parties are seeking to do the maximum amount of harm to each other they can legally get away with.

It is depressing but true that divorce court must be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to marriages.  Likewise there should be a system of single party accountability with politics.

It's more like doctor #1 prescribing me medicine that is unnecessarily laced with poisonous chemicals that will slowly kill me, because he has an under-the-table contract with the company that makes said poisonous chemical.  I go to that doctor, because the doctor #2 puts something even worse in the same medicine for the same reason.  There are other doctors, but they're constantly sabotaged by the first two.

And those other political parties would be?  Because I don't know of any political parties that a majority of Americans would prefer over our current ones.  Like I said, it's a complaint not a governing ideology.

You would call doing business with doctor #1 a tactical choice, on the sole basis that he won't kill you as quickly as doctor #2.  I call that meek fatalism.  You should be boycotting.

Yes, boycott the system, thus disenfranchising yourself.  That'll show the bastards.

Boycotts have a roll when the political system is utterly corrupt that there is literally no point in voting.  But the policies pursued by democrats and republicans are actually pretty substantial despite the fact that neither is what you want.

You want to know why whatever thing you wanted from Obama didn't happen?  Because there wasn't enough support in congress.  It was probably something that 80% of democrats supported and 0% of republicans supported.  If you increased the number of democrats in congress, it would make what you wanted more likely.

[GlyphGryph]

Oooh, Analogy time!

Okay, imagine you are a fat guy:

Doctor 1 says: You need to lose weight! I know just the thing - Dieting! In fact, I've got a friend who makes this wonderful pill, perfect diet pill... side effects? Hah, don't worry about that! I wouldn't steer you wrong, would I? Now, just sign this disclaimer... Oh, and don't believe the other guy about exercise, only morons do that.

Doctor 2 says: You need to lose weight! I know just the thing - Exercise! In fact, I've got a friend who runs this incredibly gym, it's pricey but worth it - after all, if you don't go, you're going to die of obesity! To get there, just head down the street - to save costs, its in the old steel factory. Be careful of the jagged metal everywhere, but don't worry! It'll toughen you up. And don't believe the other guy about dieting - only lazy good-fer-nothings take that route!

Sure, they are VERY different - but I'm not so sure I want to be dealing with either of them, REGARDLESS of whether I think dieting or exercise is a better idea. I am very seriously in a position where I utterly opposed to the platforms of both parties. They both have components I support, sure, and the democrats might have slightly more... but I am more OPPOSED to most of both parties platforms than I am in SUPPORT of either parties platforms.

[mainiac]

Oooh, Analogy time!

Okay, now imagine I'm a voter.

I vote in the primaries for the candidate who I think is the best advocate for my world views.  He doesn't support everything I do but he is closer to me then the median in my district.  I don't really know where this metaphor is going but basically you suck for not voting. 

[Andrew425]

I guess I should clarify that I live in Canada.

And I like the way it is there, I think they need to do change the electoral college in the states, but I don't think they should change fptp

[GlyphGryph]

I do vote. Although, arguably, advocating for a candidate is far more meaningful than voting (and, actually, with all the moving I've been doing I don't know if I'll even be ABLE to vote this year, but whatever. I'm going to try to at least research some local candidates so I can cast an informed vote if I can get registered in my new state, which may be super-easy or ridiculously hard, I've got no idea).

It doesn't change the fact that I'm unhappy with the choices on offer.

Andrew:
You haven't said WHY they shouldn't change Fptp though. You've only argued against the parliamentary system, which doesn't have anything to do with it (regardless of whether or not Maniac supports it).

Personally, I'd rather keep the Electoral system and rework it into what it was originally supposed to be.

I don't actually support any popular implementation of Approval Voting or Direct Representative as my preferred system (I just see it as the optimal of possible options), but I've expounded at length on my ideal political system in other threads, I won't take over this one as well.

[Neonivek]

I don't vote but that is because right now all the candidates are in such a stalemate that my vote actually has no effect even on mass.

[Willfor]

I guess I should clarify that I live in Canada.

And I like the way it is there, I think they need to do change the electoral college in the states, but I don't think they should change fptp

What? Proportional Representation is the best system for Canada. FPTP has done very little good for us recently.