What I still don't get about democracy, US style

Jasvox · 11-09-2012, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Checking...jono

Maybe viable 3rd, 4th, 5th parties would force a coalition in order to accomplish anything. It would take a major cultural change, however, which would be a long slow process if it's at all possible.

Sometimes that causes more problems than you can imagine. I think we should do away with ALL political parties. We dont need them and they only cause division and what we have today...stalemating, infighting, partisanship and a broken system.

Jason

redrockcoulee · 11-09-2012, 07:35 AM

Mike

Almost all systems of democracy can result in a small difference in the popular vote making a big difference in the congress/parliament etc. Using the Canadian system as an example of a totally different type of electing our government where the leader of the party with the most seats is our Prime Minister. The Liberal Party may win a seat in Toronto with 35% of the vote due to the number of parties whereas a rural seat in the prairies with less population due to the physical size the Conservative might get 85% of the vote.

So it may well be that in strong Republican states the GOP gets more than 65% of the votes whereas in strong Democrat state it might be 55% hence the national popular vote may not reflect the relative strengths in regions. Once you are well over 50% in the case of your system, in any state the rest of the votes for that party do not matter.

One of the reasons for statements in a Parliamentary system is most of us have more than 2 parties to choose from and in the last decade we had two different parties with minority governments. In my opinion it is not a third party but two more parties you could use in your system, another conservative party and a real liberal or left wing party. That way people are not automatically opposed to an ideas because it came from the other party.

Blue · 11-09-2012, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

That was an indication. Somewhere in the '90s, people started to treat Reagan's well-crafted rhetoric as literal gospel. He never governed that way, nor did any other Republican President.

The wheels came off for Bush 1 when he started pandering to the "Moral Majority" and that is what finished him off. The "read my lips" got it started.

wildman · 11-09-2012, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by newmikey

Other countries around the world have faded in- and out- of democracy or are flawed democracies at most so the US does have one of the longest runs. I believe only a few countries in Europe could match that such as France (1789), Netherlands (1815) and Switserland (??) to name but a few.

Don't forget the Icelandic Alþingi (930).

Originally posted by newmikey

's more the 2012-measured effectiveness I'm questioning and the obvious stalemate that a 2 party system seems to eventually always find itself in.

For what it's worth there are many in my country, including myself, who are asking the same question - what the hell is so sacred about the two party system?

**newmikey** · 11-09-2012, 09:15 AM

Interesting discussion and certainly succeeds to widen my views so thanks to all who responded and those who are about to!

Parallax · 11-09-2012, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by newmikey

When there are such huge differences between the parties, why is a system that promotes a virtual stalemate still supported? Is a 2-party system really thàt much different than a one-party system like in China?

Actually, it's just the opposite. In a one party system the government can do pretty much whatever it wants; good, bad, or indifferent. With our current two party system the government can't seem to accomplish anything.

Seriously, what the 2 party system is supposed to do is ensure that the majority rules. In the past 2 elections President Obama received more that 50% of the vote. In contrast, Bill Clinton wasn't elected either time by a majority. In 1992 he received only 43% of the vote, or to state it another way, the majority, nearly 57%, of the voters did not want him to be president. In 1996 51% voted for someone else.

Of course there's always the Electoral College to further complicate things, and if by some chance that doesn't screw things up we have Florida to rely on.

**Just1MoreDave** · 11-09-2012, 10:06 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Blue

If there is a problem with the electoral college, it is within a state. States with a few heavy population center skews the states electoral votes in a certain direction. You can see these effects in states like Ohio, Florida and Va. I don't think this was originally expected. Perhaps states should be using a similar system internally based on counties.

The current strategy for winning the presidency takes advantage of this. The candidates don't care about the popular vote. They spent all their time and money in the eight or whatever states that were close enough to go either way. Within those states, they would campaign in areas that were friendly to each party (at least that's how they did it here). States with predictable biases either way were ignored. I would tell friends "my vote is bigger than your vote".

Parallax · 11-09-2012, 10:14 AM

One of the things that I find disturbing about the Electoral College system is that the electors are not required by Federal law to vote according to the popular vote.

Quote:

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.

In only about half of the states are they bound by State law or by pledge.

**boriscleto** · 11-09-2012, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Blue

The wheels came off for Bush 1 when he started pandering to the "Moral Majority" and that is what finished him off. The "read my lips" got it started.

But it was the recession that got Clinton elected.

The Great Recession did in John McCain, but I think Caribou Barbie had something to do with that too.

GeneV · 11-09-2012, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

The current strategy for winning the presidency takes advantage of this. The candidates don't care about the popular vote. They spent all their time and money in the eight or whatever states that were close enough to go either way. Within those states, they would campaign in areas that were friendly to each party (at least that's how they did it here). States with predictable biases either way were ignored. I would tell friends "my vote is bigger than your vote".

Exactly. Talking about the popular vote is like talking about yards gained in a football game rather than points scored. If you run up the points, you won big. If yards were the score, or (hits rather than runs in baseball) then games would be played differently.

The same thing applies to talking about the effect of third party candidates.

11-09-2012, 09:18 AM	#21
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by newmikey When there are such huge differences between the parties, why is a system that promotes a virtual stalemate still supported? Is a 2-party system really thàt much different than a one-party system like in China? Actually, it's just the opposite. In a one party system the government can do pretty much whatever it wants; good, bad, or indifferent. With our current two party system the government can't seem to accomplish anything. Seriously, what the 2 party system is supposed to do is ensure that the majority rules. In the past 2 elections President Obama received more that 50% of the vote. In contrast, Bill Clinton wasn't elected either time by a majority. In 1992 he received only 43% of the vote, or to state it another way, the majority, nearly 57%, of the voters did not want him to be president. In 1996 51% voted for someone else. Of course there's always the Electoral College to further complicate things, and if by some chance that doesn't screw things up we have Florida to rely on. Last edited by Parallax; 11-09-2012 at 09:34 AM.

11-09-2012, 10:43 AM	#24
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Blue The wheels came off for Bush 1 when he started pandering to the "Moral Majority" and that is what finished him off. The "read my lips" got it started. But it was the recession that got Clinton elected. The Great Recession did in John McCain, but I think Caribou Barbie had something to do with that too. Last edited by boriscleto; 11-09-2012 at 10:49 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What People Don't Get About My Job: From A(rmy Soldier) to Z(ookeeper)	RioRico	General Talk	4	09-15-2011 02:48 PM
I don't get it	jeffkrol	General Talk	18	05-24-2011 07:10 PM
what don't I get about exposure?	FHPhotographer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	34	09-11-2008 07:12 AM
What I miss (and don't miss) about my K10D	switters	Pentax DSLR Discussion	35	01-06-2008 02:51 AM

11-09-2012, 07:32 AM	#16
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by Checking...jono Maybe viable 3rd, 4th, 5th parties would force a coalition in order to accomplish anything. It would take a major cultural change, however, which would be a long slow process if it's at all possible. Sometimes that causes more problems than you can imagine. I think we should do away with ALL political parties. We dont need them and they only cause division and what we have today...stalemating, infighting, partisanship and a broken system. Jason

11-09-2012, 07:35 AM	#17
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Mike Almost all systems of democracy can result in a small difference in the popular vote making a big difference in the congress/parliament etc. Using the Canadian system as an example of a totally different type of electing our government where the leader of the party with the most seats is our Prime Minister. The Liberal Party may win a seat in Toronto with 35% of the vote due to the number of parties whereas a rural seat in the prairies with less population due to the physical size the Conservative might get 85% of the vote. So it may well be that in strong Republican states the GOP gets more than 65% of the votes whereas in strong Democrat state it might be 55% hence the national popular vote may not reflect the relative strengths in regions. Once you are well over 50% in the case of your system, in any state the rest of the votes for that party do not matter. One of the reasons for statements in a Parliamentary system is most of us have more than 2 parties to choose from and in the last decade we had two different parties with minority governments. In my opinion it is not a third party but two more parties you could use in your system, another conservative party and a real liberal or left wing party. That way people are not automatically opposed to an ideas because it came from the other party.

11-09-2012, 07:59 AM	#18
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by GeneV That was an indication. Somewhere in the '90s, people started to treat Reagan's well-crafted rhetoric as literal gospel. He never governed that way, nor did any other Republican President. The wheels came off for Bush 1 when he started pandering to the "Moral Majority" and that is what finished him off. The "read my lips" got it started.

11-09-2012, 09:12 AM	#19
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by newmikey Other countries around the world have faded in- and out- of democracy or are flawed democracies at most so the US does have one of the longest runs. I believe only a few countries in Europe could match that such as France (1789), Netherlands (1815) and Switserland (??) to name but a few. Don't forget the Icelandic Alþingi (930). Originally posted by newmikey 's more the 2012-measured effectiveness I'm questioning and the obvious stalemate that a 2 party system seems to eventually always find itself in. For what it's worth there are many in my country, including myself, who are asking the same question - what the hell is so sacred about the two party system?

11-09-2012, 09:15 AM	#20
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,289 Original Poster	Interesting discussion and certainly succeeds to widen my views so thanks to all who responded and those who are about to!

11-09-2012, 10:06 AM - 1 Like	#22
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Blue If there is a problem with the electoral college, it is within a state. States with a few heavy population center skews the states electoral votes in a certain direction. You can see these effects in states like Ohio, Florida and Va. I don't think this was originally expected. Perhaps states should be using a similar system internally based on counties. The current strategy for winning the presidency takes advantage of this. The candidates don't care about the popular vote. They spent all their time and money in the eight or whatever states that were close enough to go either way. Within those states, they would campaign in areas that were friendly to each party (at least that's how they did it here). States with predictable biases either way were ignored. I would tell friends "my vote is bigger than your vote".

11-09-2012, 10:14 AM	#23
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	One of the things that I find disturbing about the Electoral College system is that the electors are not required by Federal law to vote according to the popular vote. Quote: Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. In only about half of the states are they bound by State law or by pledge.

11-09-2012, 11:08 AM	#25
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave The current strategy for winning the presidency takes advantage of this. The candidates don't care about the popular vote. They spent all their time and money in the eight or whatever states that were close enough to go either way. Within those states, they would campaign in areas that were friendly to each party (at least that's how they did it here). States with predictable biases either way were ignored. I would tell friends "my vote is bigger than your vote". Exactly. Talking about the popular vote is like talking about yards gained in a football game rather than points scored. If you run up the points, you won big. If yards were the score, or (hits rather than runs in baseball) then games would be played differently. The same thing applies to talking about the effect of third party candidates.