Proportional representation

[phrodeau]

Peck smith cannot point to a single example of PR working well. There are many examples of it working badly. In Israel for example, extreme religious conservatives permanently hold the balance of power and cannot be ousted.

A single transferable preference system is far better than PR because whoever is elected has to get 50% +1 to get elected.

You think the US system is working well? OK then.

 

[pecksniff]

But is less republican than American Democracy.

At the state level, where federalism is not at issue, how can there be any distinction between democracy and republic?

 

[GothTalk]

At the state level,

And federal.

I'm glad you understand that PR is un-American and likely to never happen.

 

[pecksniff]

And federal.

I'm glad you understand that PR is un-American and likely to never happen.

You keep saying it's un-American, but you never have anything to back that up, other than the fact that we have not previously used it here.

And the only reason it might be "likely to never happen" is institutional resistance by the Republicrats.

 

[GothTalk]

You keep saying it's un-American, but you never have anything to back that up, other than the fact that we have not previously used it here.

You want to be rid of American democracy and replace it with a something antithetical to American values.

Much like you and your bolshie comrades anti-civil rights positions against literally every freedom that makes the USA the USA, it's un-American.

 

[oggbashan]

You keep saying it's un-American, but you never have anything to back that up, other than the fact that we have not previously used it here.

Because it does not work as you think it would. And which PR do you mean?

 

[pecksniff]

You want to be rid of American democracy and replace it with a something antithetical to American values.

Much like you and your bolshie comrades anti-civil rights positions against literally every freedom that makes the USA the USA, it's un-American.

How is PR "antithetical to American values"?!

 

[pecksniff]

Because it does not work as you think it would. And which PR do you mean?

Well, I believe PR has at least come under serious consideration in the UK -- which forms were considered?

 

[GothTalk]

How is PR "antithetical to American values"?!

I've already told you.

It's a more democratic system entirely different from American Democracy and the republican values of said democracy in our Constitution.

Being against the US Constitution and wanting to shit can American Democracy in favor of some ancient and inferior if not outright failed form makes it un-American.

Just like your distain for freedom of speech, religion, association, commerce, armament as well as the abolition of private property and states being anymore than administrative districts for a centralized authority.

Wanting to turn the USA into the OPPOSITE of everything it was founded as and built into over the last 245 years makes you anti-American peck.

 

[pecksniff]

I've already told you.

It's a more democratic system entirely different from American Democracy and the republican values of said democracy in our Constitution.

That's your objection?! That it's "more democratic"?!

You might have made that objection to the abolition of property qualifications for voting, or "literacy" tests, or race or gender qualifications. And you'll find practically nobody but you wants to bring back any of those.

Being against the US Constitution and wanting to shit can American Democracy in favor of some ancient and inferior if not outright failed form makes it un-American.

"Ancient"? PR was invented in the 19th Century. Looking at all the republics and constitutional monarchies that use it now -- which is most of them -- you have no grounds to call it "inferior" or "failed."

 

[oggbashan]

Well, I believe PR has at least come under serious consideration in the UK -- which forms were considered?

It was only considered because the Liberal Democrats wanted it as the price of forming a coalition with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives ensured that the worst possible version was considered. Of course, it did not get public support.

We already had proportional representation (before Brexit) for the European parliament. It was disliked, because although it gave a few seats to minor parties, the Members of the European parliament represented too many people and the personal touch was lost. The turnout for a European election was even less than that for local councils. People just didn't care to vote for someone who might represent 5 million of them.

 

[pecksniff]

On the other hand, a two party system is a great guard against radicalism.

You know, like National Socialism...

Herman Goering once remarked that a single-member-district system in Germany would have brought the Nazis to power sooner.

 

[Pad_Foot]

You're not getting rid of American Democracy any time soon.

How does fitting the representation closer to the actual voter deprive anyone of democracy??

Gerrymandering could be eliminated.

Parties would give up power, but the Dems and R’s are not America or the People
In CA, all the rural areas combined would gain a voice. Then again in big red states, the cities would get theirs. At the very least the Presidential election should go this way while still using the electoral college vs straight National percentage

Compromise would have to happen

The Filibuster would have to go

Why should 51% get you all the representation? But? For a vote when that 51% represents 57% of the people?

Sitting in a state that is 76% opposed to you? Why vote ?

More voting power to the people is communism? Fuck, they have no vote!
Then again, what nation is actually communist ? Russia? China? N Korea? Cuba?!

 

[Cubantripod]

How is PR "antithetical to American values"?!

We don't have the PR that you and most on the left want. You want it based strictly on a per head count. You think you can then get a simple majority and trample on those that you don't agree with. The framers were aware of this and this was one of their fears with a direct democracy. They wanted to create a system that allowed for groups with many different ideas finding common grounds, rather than a large majority in a few densely packed cities trampling three quarters of the country. That's why we ha a bi-cameral legislature. It's why initially you could have a president and VP from differing parties. It allowed for more voices to be represented.

 

[GothTalk]

That's your objection?! That it's "more democratic"?!

100%.....that's also what makes it un-American.

Read the Constitution some time. It might help you understand why totalitarian and authoritarian control freak "progressive" types that are against things like private property, statehood and civil liberties of every sort are anti-American.

You might have made that objection to the abolition of property qualifications for voting, or "literacy" tests, or race or gender qualifications.

Sure. But modifications to the system are a different thing than replacing it with something totally different.

And you'll find practically nobody but you wants to bring back any of those.

I think you'll find progressive leftist are not practically everybody in the USA.

"Ancient"? PR was invented in the 19th Century.

In it's current form but it's core concept is very old, very left, and very prone to total failure.

Looking at all the republics and constitutional monarchies that use it now -- which is most of them -- you have no grounds to call it "inferior" or "failed."

It's inferior because it's even less effective and more broken than the American system.

It's failed because 6000 years of history shows giving the idiots and parasites of society a say so in how society is run doesn't usually go well.

Thus the property/service requirements and literacy/citizenship tests.

 

[pecksniff]

It was only considered because the Liberal Democrats wanted it as the price of forming a coalition with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives ensured that the worst possible version was considered. Of course, it did not get public support.

Which one was that -- party-list, or what?

We already had proportional representation (before Brexit) for the European parliament. It was disliked, because although it gave a few seats to minor parties, the Members of the European parliament represented too many people and the personal touch was lost. The turnout for a European election was even less than that for local councils. People just didn't care to vote for someone who might represent 5 million of them.

No doubt that would apply to any system for elections to a continental parliament.

 

[pecksniff]

It's failed because 6000 years of history shows giving the idiots and parasites of society a say so in how society is run doesn't usually go well.

That has always worked better than anything else. No republic has ever fallen because the plebs voted themselves largesse from the treasury.

 

[WillJ8787]

Without limits but otherwise we agree on this....get the whole government on the same synced up election cycle, extend it a bit so they aren't campaigning 90% of the time.


As for the term limits, I don't think we should have them, if the people like their congress critter/POTUS they should be allowed to keep them. The election is the term limit, the chance for the people to say yay or nay.

I think term limits are import...we really only have one case as to why and it was a Dem who held office that brought it to light.

FDR ...he had a 3 term and would probably have been elected for a fourth. He was that popular and inspite of being a big fan of his policies....I would still say it was too much power for too long.

I take the Jeffersonian approach....every now and again it is good to start fresh again with new blood and new ideas

 

[pecksniff]

I think term limits are import...we really only have one case as to why and it was a Dem who held office that brought it to light.

FDR ...he had a 3 term and would probably have been elected for a fourth. He was that popular and inspite of being a big fan of his policies....I would still say it was too much power for too long.

I take the Jeffersonian approach....every now and again it is good to start fresh again with new blood and new ideas

I recall an editorial cartoon from shortly after the Republican Revolution of 1994: A Republican elephant is riding in a "Just Married" carriage -- and kicking out an astonished bride labeled "Term Limits."

 

[GothTalk]

That has always worked better than anything else.

No, the policies that give rise to and allow prosperity to continue work better than the policies that destroy nations and societies.

 

[GothTalk]

I think term limits are import...we really only have one case as to why and it was a Dem who held office that brought it to light.

FDR ...he had a 3 term and would probably have been elected for a fourth. He was that popular and inspite of being a big fan of his policies....I would still say it was too much power for too long.

Fair enough, but I still disagree with it.

If the people liked FDR, they should have been able to keep him so long as he was willing to serve.

Same should go for congress critters. States manage their own shit but I would want the same in my state.

I take the Jeffersonian approach....every now and again it is good to start fresh again with new blood and new ideas

The Jeffersonian approach would also have been to leave when "every now and again" is up to the electorate which I obviously think is accomplished by having an election cycle.... but there isn't a reason the government can't structure itself with term limits so long as support from the electorate is there and it's not just some bullshit EO/mandate some POTUS/Governor/Mayor on a power trip tries to decree into existence. All quite in accordance with traditional western liberal values.

 

[pecksniff]

I take the Jeffersonian approach....every now and again it is good to start fresh again with new blood and new ideas

Jefferson, in fact, recommended that the Constitution be scrapped and rewritten every 20 years, on the grounds that you cannot expect a man to wear a boy's jacket.

 

[pecksniff]

No, the policies that give rise to and allow prosperity to continue work better than the policies that destroy nations and societies.

Historically, the polices that destroy nations and societies are those that produce massive inequalities in wealth and power.

 

[oggbashan]

Historically, the polices that destroy nations and societies are those that produce massive inequalities in wealth and power.

And proportional representation would do nothing to change that.

 

[pecksniff]

We don't have the PR that you and most on the left want. You want it based strictly on a per head count.

Ermm, yeah, that's democracy. Britain has never had any reason to regret scrapping the pre-reform principle that "Parliament represents land, not people."

And, a shift to PR favors the left no more than the right.

You think you can then get a simple majority and trample on those that you don't agree with.

Again:

Some people fear moving from a two-party system to a multiparty system because they see it as empowering extremists.

But I see it as empowering the center.

What a proportional representation system does is make the elected representatives more exactly represent the range of political views of the voters -- and a lot of people are centrists.

So, here's a possible scenario: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, and neither has enough votes to form a majority, no bill can ever pass Congress or any state legislature without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

The framers were aware of this and this was one of their fears with a direct democracy. They wanted to create a system that allowed for groups with many different ideas finding common grounds, rather than a large majority in a few densely packed cities trampling three quarters of the country. That's why we ha a bi-cameral legislature. It's why initially you could have a president and VP from differing parties. It allowed for more voices to be represented.

The most important point made in the Federalist Papers was that the sheer size of the United States would prevent any "faction" from dominating the system. (An important point at the time, because all previous examples of republican government had been small-scale, city-states or small provinces.) PR would not interfere with that, would, to the contrary, make it that much more difficult for any faction (or, as we would say nowadays, party) to leverage a hair-thin majority into institutional power. No party would ever have a majority anywhere.