What's your opinion on electoral reform? Personally, I think it's about time it happened and that STV or a range voting system is best because they are both best at catering to the tastes of the electorate AND preserving political stability.
Electoral reform - A top issue
- Thread starter Jack Haywood
- Start date
Someone who gets the most votes should win hands down. It's retarded that in the US it's state by state. It's virtually pointless to vote in solid states whether you be in Cali or Mississippi. I know people complain about not wanting California to decide the election but equal representation is what the senate and house are for. One person should equal one vote always who the fuck where they live.
On the other hand, though, the USA isn't really a nation state in and of itself like what Europe has several of. It isn't called the United STATES for nothing. I agree that they should change their system, though, using range voting instead.
THE EXTENT of the fall of a body is always measured by the distance between its momentary position and the one it originally occupied. The same is true of nations and states. A decisive significance must be ascribed to their previous position or rather elevation. Only what is accustomed to rise above the common limit can fall and crash to a manifest low This is what makes the collapse of the Reich so hard and terrible for every thinking and feeling man, since it brought a crash from heights which today, in view of the depths of our present degradation, are scarcely conceivable.
Die Democratic Swine
When you vote for FPTP, you vote for Hitler.
EDIT: OP let people see who voted for what. I'm curious.
Put me in charge of everything. Then I'll kill all the bad people and everything will be great.
More Spicey Than Coolwhip
kiwifarms.net
In case some Kiwis are not sure what some of the options mean, here is a video describing single transferable voting.
If you look on the guys channel he has videos on some of the other forms of voting as well.
If you look on the guys channel he has videos on some of the other forms of voting as well.
He's obviously a furfag of some sort.
An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.
I would actually go with Single Transferrable Vote and do it the Australian way. Mainly because it would actually allow third party candidates to have a chance at winning elections and people would be able to vote their conscience, not to mention they get to pick second or third choices as well. Plus, the votes should be proportional.
Elwood P. Dowd
kiwifarms.net
The Senate is anything BUT "equal representation." The top four states' total population is ~ 85 million, and they send 8 senators. The bottom four states is maybe 4 million, and they send ... 8 senators.
An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.
Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented with the form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearn for a renovation of it; and so it may happen that through this impulse of the soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that, by virtue of their understanding and their knowledge, they are called to solve the religious difficulties of the time and accordingly present themselves as the prophets of a new teaching or at least as declared adversaries of the standing beliefs.
Here also it is certain that the natural law will take its course, inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission. But usually the others are slow to acknowledge that only one man is called. On the contrary, they all believe that they have an equal right to engage in the solution of the diffculties in question and that they are equally called to that task. Their contemporary world is generally quite unable to decide which of all these possesses the highest gifts and accordingly merits the support of all.
So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the same epoch, different men establish different movements to struggle towards the same end. At least the end is declared by the founders of the movements to be the same, or may be looked upon as such by the masses of the people. The populace nourishes vague desires and has only general opinions, without having any precise notion of their own ideals and desires or of the question whether and how it is impossible for these ideals and desires to be fulfilled.
The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach the same objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing in his own mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his own road without any regard for the others.
These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originate entirely independently of one another out of the general urge of the time, and all with a view to working towards the same goal. It may seem a tragic thing, at least at first sight, that this should be so, because people are too often inclined to think that forces which are dispersed in different directions would attain their ends far more quickly and more surely if they were united in one common effort. But that is not so. For Nature herself decides according to the rules of her inexorable logic. She leaves these diverse groups to compete with one another and dispute the palm of victory and thus she chooses the clearest, shortest and surest way along which she leads the movement to its final goal.
How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if the forces at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decision were to rest with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are so infatuated with their own superior knowledge that their minds are not open to accept the indisputable proof presented by manifest success, which in the last analysis always gives the final confirmation of the justice of a course of action.
Hence, though diverse groups march along different routes towards the same objective, as soon as they come to know that analogous efforts are being made around them, they will have to study all the more carefully whether they have chosen the best way and whether a shorter way may not be found and how their efforts can best be employed to reach the objective more quickly.
Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops his faculties to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human race has frequently owed its progress to the lessons learned from the misfortunes of former attempts which have come to grief. Therefore we may conclude that we come to know the better ways of reaching final results through a state of things which at first sight appeared tragic; namely, the initial dispersion of individual efforts, wherein each group was unconsciously responsible for such dispersion.
In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a way for the solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion at one time was that there were two possible paths along which that problem might be solved and that these two paths should have united from the very beginning. The chief representatives and champions of these two paths were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg and Hohenzollern. All the rest, according to this prevalent opinion, ought to have entrusted their united forces to the one or the other party. But at that time the path of the most prominent representative, the Habsburg, would have been taken, though the Austrian policy would never have led to the foundation of a united German Reich.
Finally, a strong and united German Reich arose out of that which many millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the last and most terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. The truth is that the German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battle field of Königgrätz and not in the fights that were waged before Paris, as was commonly asserted afterwards.
Thus the foundation of the German Reich was not the consequence of any common will working along common lines, but it was much more the outcome of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though the protagonists were often hardly conscious of this. And from this struggle Prussia finally came out victorious. Anybody who is not so blinded by partisan politics as to deny this truth will have to agree that the so-called wisdom of men would never have come to the same wise decision as the wisdom of Life itself, that is to say, the free play of forces, finally brought to realization. For in the German lands of two hundred years before who would seriously have believed that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not Habsburg, would become the germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the new Reich? And, on the other hand, who would deny today that Destiny thus acted wiser than human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German Reich based on the foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?
What... the... actual... fuck...
Meh, I think the US current system kinda compensates itself and avoids a massive creation of representatives. In Spain we have a set number of representatives, but the parties get members by reaching a certain number of voters (grouped by autonomic communities). That way in case even if a party has majority (but not absolute majority) it could still lose if it failed to pact with smaller parties than tend to dominate certain autonomic communities. By only counting the number of votes our RW party would have won inmediately, rather than have him as a president in functions for a year because the left couldn't bring themselves to make a damn pact.
So yeah, I think all those who think that only number of voters should count, I would say think again. But that's just my two cents.
So yeah, I think all those who think that only number of voters should count, I would say think again. But that's just my two cents.
That would've led to Hilary and Al Gore. I completely disagree. The majority isn't always right.
The political dynamics of the United States are more analogous to an empire than a conventional nation-state IMO. The system is geared so all provinces get some say, because it should be pretty clear why an emperor installed by a small handful of provinces while being deeply unpopular in the rest could easily lead to an explosive situation.
More Spicey Than Coolwhip
kiwifarms.net
If you wanted to take baby steps with voter reform one might suggest stopping the "winner take all" aspect of the electoral votes in most of the states. There is a decent argument against a strict popular vote by pointing out that only a few cities would always determine the election, but I'm not sure how much you can justify counting a state that's half-in-half as being a fully blue/red state just because one margin is slightly higher.
And you convinced me. Australia FTW.
Similar threads
An electronics fag tries to make a point while seeing doubles. - Alternatively why beer before liqour may not be a good idea.
