RE: Parties for proportional representation

RE: Parties for proportional representation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:13:02 PM)
Eliminate the electoral college and go to popular vote. California is probably the most extreme example but all their electoral votes are typically going to have a D after them. This effectively disenfranchises Republicans and Independents in that state. To add insult to injury, Electoral votes are apportioned according to total population, not citizens. Illegal aliens (2.5 Mil in Cali) are represented and electors with a D after their name cast a vote for them. Total non citizens are estimated at 19% of California's population and they effectively get a vote while millions of citizens have theirs cancelled.

MrRodgers -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:22:33 PM)
Well if we had the rest which is a parliamentary system, the US would have been much better off than we are now. That would require the practice of forming a post voting govt. rather than the duopoly of up or down...winner take all we have now in the US. Now that means of course that most of society would have been better off. I don't know about the US where banking and equities are much more better off with the fiasco of a republic we have now and society, well...who fucking cares. Neither govt. anymore or business as always, gives a damn about society. A strong majority think the problem in govt. and the people in these business institutions, no longer even believe govt. should act in the interest of the people but only for institutions and govt. power they support.

mnottertail -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:28:26 PM)
I believe that is what was envisioned was a parlimentary system, at the outset. Regional differences in the way this country was annexed together sort of made a strange attractor and we ended up pretty much a two party system thru the advent of the Civil War (North against South) and we haven't shaken that loose. We should.

Moonhead -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:28:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Eliminating the districts entirely would do the job, Moon. Obviously, doing that removes the sort of direct contact, and direct representation we get from having districts. We could always just draw much simpler lines, creating apolitical blocks of 700,000 odd people each, and assign them to the legislators, but that isn't going to give us the sort of accountability needed. Maybe give the assigned districts the power to approve or reject their individual Rep's eligibility to serve in the seat? That would probably work, but there'd be nothing to stop whoever gets elected tampering with how the districts are parcelled up, so it might not prove a permanent solution.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Really? How'd you work that out, pray tell? simples. one man one vote not more by transfer. it can also make for bigger government but not sure if thats only with parliament systems quote: Under proportional voting systems countries often get “pizza parliaments”, so called because a seating map of the legislature resembles a pizza cut into many pieces. In pizza parliaments even the biggest parties rarely have enough seats to form a government and they are forced into alliances with smaller parties. Such alliances give great leverage to small parties that demand legislation and regulation for the benefits of their members in return for voting with the government. As a result, some taxes, regulation and spending programs that under the present system are rejected, under the proportional system are adopted, not because they have become socially more desirable but as a result of the new electoral system. An empirical study published recently in the prestigious American Economic Review by Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini lends strong support for this view. Countries with proportional representation have higher spending and levels of regulation than parliaments elected under the plurality system.

Moonhead -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:31:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Really? How'd you work that out, pray tell? simple. one man one vote. not two, three, four or five. It's still one vote, it just gets transferred to the next selection when the one before drops out of the running. Just like on X Factor.

mnottertail -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:32:21 PM)
I see that box, and find it hard to believe that it is credible or accurate.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's still one vote, it just gets transferred to the next selection when the one before drops out of the running. Just like on X Factor. not just that. the winners surplus votes are transferred.

TheHeretic -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Eliminate the electoral college and go to popular vote. Which brings on exactly the problem the Electoral College was designed to alleviate, by weighting the smaller states. The big population centers become the only force that matters in national affairs, to the detriment of the needs of people in the less populous regions. Where I live, that translates into the LA transportation authorities happily taxing us up in here in the desert for light rail and subways down there, while our commuter railroad is restricted down to 25 mph on 19th century routes and alignments.

mnottertail -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:46:54 PM)
Well, that was a good spin but it was a compromise, north against south for counting slaves but not taxing them. It has been dressed up many ways, and we are way beyond that now. Time for that worn out shit to go.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Eliminate the electoral college and go to popular vote. Which brings on exactly the problem the Electoral College was designed to alleviate, by weighting the smaller states. The big population centers become the only force that matters in national affairs, to the detriment of the needs of people in the less populous regions. Isn't that the way it is now? The populous states like Cali, NY, OH, PA and FL basically settle the whole thing and everyone else can go get fucked. At least if you get rid of the college, illegals and noncitizens aren't represented in the process.

tj444 -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 1:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Tax policies that encourage and support those who try to do the charitable thing? I'm in for that. One thing about charities tho.. they are competition for other businesses.. similar to the illegal immigrant that will do work for almost free thus being competition for jobs and decent wages, the charity is competition for businesses that need to make money to pay their rent, pay wages & benefits, pay income tax, pay property tax, etc.. and still try to survive.. I know someone who is an employee of a non-profit tax software company (who I believe gets paid very well- they do work him hard tho).. he applies on behalf of the non-profit every year for subsidies from the govt and last year they expanded into other sectors.. Now.. the non-profit thing and getting subsidies thing make them stiff competition for other for-profit companies in the same line of work.. How many businesses have been put under and outta business cuz they cant compete with that??? Think about that.. How many of ya'll can compete & survive long-term if a non-profit moved in & became your employers competition??? I am not saying non-profits are bad.. I am just saying there is a flip side to that which most people dont think about..

mnottertail -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 2:00:35 PM)
Major League Baseball is non-profit, isn't it?

TheHeretic -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 2:03:19 PM)
Wanna go back to the 3/5th compromise, then? Some intelligence regarding immigration policy is another thing I'd be looking for.

tj444 -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 2:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Major League Baseball is non-profit, isn't it? lol I havent got a clue about sports leagues and how they operate... I just know the guys wear cute tight outfits and use a bat & ball.. [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 2:51:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Tax policies that encourage and support those who try to do the charitable thing? I'm in for that. One thing about charities tho.. they are competition for other businesses.. similar to the illegal immigrant that will do work for almost free thus being competition for jobs and decent wages, the charity is competition for businesses that need to make money to pay their rent, pay wages & benefits, pay income tax, pay property tax, etc.. and still try to survive.. I know someone who is an employee of a non-profit tax software company (who I believe gets paid very well- they do work him hard tho).. he applies on behalf of the non-profit every year for subsidies from the govt and last year they expanded into other sectors.. Now.. the non-profit thing and getting subsidies thing make them stiff competition for other for-profit companies in the same line of work.. How many businesses have been put under and outta business cuz they cant compete with that??? Think about that.. How many of ya'll can compete & survive long-term if a non-profit moved in & became your employers competition??? I am not saying non-profits are bad.. I am just saying there is a flip side to that which most people dont think about.. There is a difference between a non-profit organization and a charitable non-profit that provides tax benefits for donors. Non-profit entities such as Habitat for Humanity, the Salvation Army, etc. are fantastic and do indeed compete with for-profit entities, but typically only serve those who would not otherwise be able to afford the for-profit services. If you want to be picky, anyone who re-sells things (flea markets, e-bay, craig's list, etc.) could be considered competing with for-profit enterprise, too.

tj444 -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 3:50:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There is a difference between a non-profit organization and a charitable non-profit that provides tax benefits for donors. Non-profit entities such as Habitat for Humanity, the Salvation Army, etc. are fantastic and do indeed compete with for-profit entities, but typically only serve those who would not otherwise be able to afford the for-profit services. If you want to be picky, anyone who re-sells things (flea markets, e-bay, craig's list, etc.) could be considered competing with for-profit enterprise, too. I dont dispute that.. I never said non-profits were bad.. it just depends what business they are in & how they go about it.. btw, not everyone loves Habitat for Humanity.. they have also now started in the development business... neighbors of some of their developments arent happy about the increasing crime and blame them for it.. (just sayin') They are also competing with landlords cuz if someone cant get one of those cheap subsidized houses they would likely be renting.. Just as (here anyway) anyone on Section 8 can use that money to buy a house.. so the govt itself is competing with landlords also.. And if something happens and they cant pay their mortgage anymore on that cheap subsidized house, who gets those houses back again? Yes, anyone that does sell on ebay or at flea markets etc do compete with second hand stores, or even Ikea.. Thats why the IRS wants a chunk of what ebayers & flea market sellers make.. they are in business, just they dont have a brick-and-mortar storefront.. Why do you think Walmart & other similar stores want online businesses to pay sales tax too, they had a definate advantage and were taking away too much business..

kdsub -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 4:23:40 PM)
quote: legislature of proportional representation. May I ask...what does this mean to you? Butch

Hillwilliam -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 4:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Wanna go back to the 3/5th compromise, then? Some intelligence regarding immigration policy is another thing I'd be looking for. What has one man, one vote got to do with the 3/5 compromise? Nice try at a smokescreen but in case you didn't hear, Mississippi finally ratified the 13th amendment the other day.

TheHeretic -> RE: Parties for proportional representation (2/18/2013 4:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: legislature of proportional representation. May I ask...what does this mean to you? Butch It means that the legislative body of our government (HoR, specifically) is composed of representatives sent to Washington on behalf of multiple parties, and that the total representation of the state reflects the breakdown and variance the population's political preferences. California is the easy example. We have 53 seats. Instead of the big money D/R faceoffs, with the third party candidates drowned out (or no contest at all, in "safe," districts), the parties campaign statewide on whatever platform they may go with, and the delegation that is sent to Washington reflects those results proportionately. Making the math simple and calling it 50 seats, the parties get one representative in the House, for every 2% of the statewide vote they claim. How we handle the matter of political services to the individual districts is touched on already.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875