Print

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

[mainiac]

Well that's the most plausible path I've seen to a four way split actually happening without the US first instituting proportional representation.

[Mr. Palau]

Well that's the most plausible path I've seen to a four way split actually happening without the US first instituting proportional representation.

And that in itself is impossible.

[mainiac]

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

[Sirus]

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

[mainiac]

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

[Leafsnail]

A four-way split would be nice. This is probably what would happen if Britain recolonised the US- UKIP would get the crazy republicans, the Conservatives would get the moderate Republicans and the blue dog Democrats, and the rest of the democrats would be split between Labour and the Lib Dems.

Ah yes, what the crazy US conservatives really care about is withdrawing the UK from the EU .

[Sirus]

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

Damn you, English. You and your words that can mean one thing when put together but something different when put together slightly differently.

[Mr. Palau]

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

Damn you, English. You and your words that can mean one thing when put together but something different when put together slightly differently.

Yeah its technichly a proportional representation voting system, not proportional represntation of the population.

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

I don't think its that people like the first past the post system, its that the majority of voters just don't give a shit. If it were put to referendum I tihink first past the post would win on the basis of momentum.

[RedKing]

Oh hey, Mitt projected to win all five races by 50%+.

Though honestly, it kinda says something that he's only in the mid-50s in some of those states, considering his opposition consists of Gingrich and Ron Paul. Especially interesting that Santorum is currently in 2nd place in Pennsylvania, despite not being in the race anymore. There's still a significant "Anybody But Romney" contingent out there.

[lemon10]

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

It has a few things going for it:
1) Its what is specified in the holy constitution, and is so central to what it says that it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed.
2) It is massively beneficial to those in power, right now dems+reps control 98% of the senate. If it changed then almost undoubtedly +20 senators would lose their jobs, and they would have no clue if it would be them or not before it happens.
3) It would eradicate the unfair representation all of the smaller states have (and thus they would almost surely oppose it), it it didn't eradicate it (eg. by making each state have equal effect on those chosen even if they have 1/10 of the population), then all of the larger states would oppose.

[mainiac]

Proportional representation would probably take place by expanding upon the existing representation, not replacing it.  And my gut tells me that it would only happen in the House, not the Senate.  It would not make much sense in the Senate.

[Nadaka]

Adding party proportionality wouldn't necessarilly eliminate the large vs small state dynamic.

For instance, in the house representatives could be proportionally allocated within the state. Of course this means that a lot of smaller states will get odd results. For instance a 2 senator state will almost always put up 1 each (D & R) and a 3 senator state will almost always elect 1 D, 1 R, and 1 3rd party candidate. It wouldn't be without its own unique quirks.

[mainiac]

That's an interesting idea.  But I don't think it would be adopted because if people are trying to reform the Senate they'd probably not be interested in preserving the disproportionate representation of the small states.

[nenjin]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/25/breaking-gingrich-to-end-white-house-bid/?hpt=hp_t1

So it looks like the Great White Dope is finally ready to cede to reality. Kind of a pity actually, I was hoping he'd take his rampaging ego all the way to convention so it would actually be watchable.

[Sowelu]

Ugg.  Small states are supposed to have disproportionate representation, because states act like some kind of half-assed country in a weird not-quite-UN.

I may not always like what states' rights lets crazy right-wing states get away with, but I like knowing that some crazy state on the other end of the spectrum could do things I approve of, and have a fair amount of sway in the federal government even if they have low population.