Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
The more time passes on in politics, the more I want to vomit. All I see is corruption by all parties and it never seems to get better. So, I have an idea on how to get the kind of government we want.
Keep the three party system, but no longer give republicans and democrats and guaranteed spot on any ballot. Maybe if they actually had to work to get a spot on the ballot, they’d shape up and quit looking out only for themselves.
(263 votes, average: 3.14 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
70 queries. 0.855 seconds
Top Article Last Week
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
The problem with a three-way vote as opposed to the two-party system is that the two most liberal candidates split the vote and leave the most conservative candidate with a plurality or most number of votes. Just like when Harold Washington won the primary for Chicago mayor because he ran against two white candidates who split the “white vote”. It means the minority can take over, and there is no longer “representative government”.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
You don’t have ‘representative government’, Alan. You don’t have majority government, either.
You have a system of plurality government.
In your example Washington won a plurality (i know nothing of this particular case, but i hope you have good reasons to paint this as a racial race).
If you really want representative government, get a representative electoral system. If you don’t know what that is: wikipedia.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Yo.be, Chicago does have a history of racial division, but blacks have always voted democratic. The Democratic machine runs Chicago, and has a reputation for delivering votes, even if the dead people have to vote. Whoever wins the Demcratic primary will also win the election.
In this race, the black candidate won the Democratic primary in a three-way race with 2 whites, blacks (1/3)were happy, whites (2/3)were unhappy but they got over it, the machine accepted Washington as their candidate and he won against whatever non-contender the Republicans found to run against him.
BTW, Washington was also gay, publicly he had a ‘fiance’ but Chicago’s local gay community knew better.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Yo.be is making an important point. Other electoral systems work so that it takes a majority to rule, and if no party wins a majority, a number of parties must combine to govern in coalition. The plurality system (or “first past the post”) of America makes coalitions unnecessary and therefore unlikely.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
No, no, Alan, we don’t have a two party system, we have a three party system. That’s why there’s always a category on your voter’s registration card which says “Independent” should you not check the boxes marked “Republican” or “Democrat.”
Now what I’m saying is that if ALL the parties had to work to get their asses onto the ballots like the third party does, then maybe we’d see some change for the better.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
I think the ‘plurality’ only applies to the primary system of choosing the party’s candidate–but is this a local choice? I remember caucusing to choose candidates back in the 70’s. The general election is a choice between two parties–in theory at least–as some areas are controlled by one party and the opposition party has no chance of winning. But one candidate will always win a majority.
Independent just means you don’t claim party affilation. Most people who register as independent do actually have a party loyalty. Doesn’t registering as an independent forfeit your right to vote in the primary? You’re not saying that besides the RNC and DNC, there is also an INC? Doesn’t the rare candidate who wins election as an independent generallly caucus with one of the major parties?
October 4th, 2006 at 8:18 am
No, it doesn’t only apply to the primary system of choosing the party’s candidate.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Well, in theory at least, there are always a few crackpot candidates, like Perot or the LaRouchies, who have enough money but not popular or organizational support to act as spoilers for the real candidates. (Some Larouchies did slip through the system here, but were found out before the election) I think Damen is arguing against the party system, which in fact, in spite of its disadvantages, does weed out the truly bizarre candidates. The party that fails to do this, as the Republican party has failed to do with its bible thumpers and shouting preachers, and becomes too far out of the mainstream, will not win reelection, as 2008 will prove.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:27 am
In a parliamentary system with proportional representation, you don’t have “spoilers,” as opposed to American style “winner takes all” democracy in which you do.
In American democracy, the “swing voters” end up deciding the whole thing. Some “swing voters” are attentive, responsible people who are genuinely torn between what they see as two bad options, but the vast majority are disengaged, uninformed, and make up their mind at the last minute based on the last political ad they saw. In our winner takes all democracy, it’s these people, in a minority of states, that determine who our next president will be.
That’s why our presidential campaigns sound like they’re being pitched to someone in the Midwest, who’s not paying much attention, who makes decisions at the last minute based on superficial criteria.
Because each of the fifty states is also winner take all in the presidential election, if you live in a state that trends strongly one way, your vote doesn’t count. Live in Texas? Your vote for president doesn’t count. Live in California? Your vote for president doesn’t count.
Most Americans don’t really know how the system works, or that there are other systems out there that are superior to ours in a number of ways. Sorry, did I say someone else is superior to ‘Merca? No, no swing voters. We are the best in whe world in every way.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Alan: ‘one candidate will always win a majority.’
Think about this, i really think you have no clue how undemocratic this actually is. Even a candidate that has not the support of the general public will (in American democracy) be elected with a majority.
The benefits of the American system: such candidates are rare, since most of the time they are weed out. If they are not, they will be weed out the next time. You deserve better than that.
Presedential elections are by definition plurality or majority elections. Much worse are congressional elections that use a plurality system.
Supposed people can only have two political options (lets say only chocolate or vanilla), there can be worse case in witch 49% of the electorate (people who care enough to vote) can have ZERO representation in their congress.
As much as 73,99 % of the electorate can end up winning only a minority in there congress.
Needless to say that real (smaller) political minorities (there are, in real life, more than two political options) are completely not represented in your political system.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:25 am
It starts first with campaign finance reform so that at the caucuses those chosen by their parties Green, Social, Independent, Republican, Democrat
have an even split of the pot.
And as far as voting when registered as an independent - um - I’m undeclared as far as my registration - I voted in the primary in my state so I
I am a little confused as what you are talking about. Get out of the 70’s Alan. When was the last time you guys actually looked at a ballot.
It also depends on whether a partisan or non-partisan ballot is used. Most scanned ballots are non-partisan even in the general election. And it
lists R D and I and has room for on more if needed and then a right in. So a three party system it has become in theory yes, but how many debates
before the election do you see include all three, four or ……. So debate reform and campaign finance reform. You can list the names all you
want but I will vote for the one I have seen under pressure and talking questions from the audience whose character and values represent mine.
If you would care to look at my states ballot samples go to
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=227
or look at your own states ballot samples.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Oh and one more thing, I’m all for free speech and stuff, but minimize campaigning to 2 mos before the primary, and 3 mos before the general election.
Debates can take place throughout but for every scripted debate one open question debate.
October 6th, 2006 at 1:58 am
“Illinois voters do not register by political party. They may ask for either a Democratic or Republican ballot on
primary day, Toler said. Their choice is recorded, but it does not pin them down to that party in future primaries, he said.”
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1135389.html
So in theory at least if your own party doesn’t have an interesting race, you can go over to the other party and cast a vote for their weakest candidate; no one thinks this really happens. The patronage people DO have ways of finding out which ballot you asked for, so they know what party you are when they’re passing out jobs.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:38 am
But Laurie is from Minne-snow-ta, “where the snoos flies faster than the snow”, and their politics is a remnant of the German progressives who immigrated there way back when. So, okay, Minnesnowta doesn’t use party caucuses to choose candidates any more, but I’m at a loss to explain the election of independent Jesse Ventura of TV wrestling fame.
I can’t see giving all those little crackpot parties any campaign finance money unless they actually represent somebody. Historically, the nation votes in the center, and the function of the very necessary third and fourth parties under the current system is not to ensure the election of the party most opposite to them (which would happen if the general election was a strict plurality system), but to introduce issues onto the public debate that major parties will not touch. That’s why we need both a John Birch society and a socialist party. BTW, the Minnesota socialists don’t really want to win; they say all their platforms have been enacted by major parties (like maybe the DFL?), so their candidates don’t need to win. They’re beautiful people but they couldn’t run a government.
Pluralities–I suppose you could say the primary system of choosing party candidates is a plurality system, but in theory at least, all the candidates of one party have a similar political view, so the voters are not choosing between political views, they are choosing the person who can most effectively carry a certain political view in the general election.
Majorities–yes, the general election is always a contest between majorities (what percentage of the vote does the other parties really get?), and one of the two parties will always win a majority, except in rare instances, like when they elect a TV wrestler like Ventura. How is this unfair? How could a coalition of parties actually govern effectively? Have you ever been on a committee? When you get right down to it, what is the difference between two candidates, since a government budget is composed mainly of entitlements and there is little or no money left over in the budget to implement new policy.
October 8th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Cynthia McKinney and Joseph Lieberman are both Democrats.
Lincoln Chafee and James Inhofe are both Republicans.
The statement “in theory at least, all the candidates of one party have a similar political view” is only true if referring to a pretty dismal theory.
Not rare. Clinton didn’t get a majority in 1992. Bush didn’t get a majority in 2000.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
If Lieberman is a Democrat, when he can’t even get “his” party’s nomination, and when people who call up Republicans’ offices looking for action on policy issues get return calls from Lieberman’s office, I would say that like English grammar, it is the exception that proves the rule. At any rate, the politicians getting elected represent the views of the districts.
When you start talking about presidential elections, then you’re talking about the Electoral College, which is a whole different ball of wax, as it represents a balance between popular vote and statewide votes, favoring state political organizational structure somewhat over the “wisdom of the great unwashed public”. And it is still rare for a candidate to win a simple majority of the popular vote and not win the electoral college.
October 8th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Atleast Jesse V got our public active in our state and our legislature actually listening to the people for the first time in a long time. He may
not have been a great politician but if he or someone exactly like him were running for governor again against Hatch and mr. lapdog BS a Paaalenty
I’d vote for the Rebel without a cause again.
As far as the finance, doling it out to anyone who has a sign for “vote for me”, is idiotic, and if I came across that way I apologize. But this
Dems v Reps has got to stop, I’m bored and need a change from chosing between the lessor of two evils or say f#$@ it and not voting in
that category at all. Make my vote worth my while, challenge me, make these idiots work for their campaign money and work for their vote.
As far as the Electoral College, I have tried to understand how that has worked for years and have basically put it in the same basket with how
they determine my property value.
The reason America doesn’t care anymore is because its the same crap in a differant container blah blah blahing at them on the radio, tv and
street corner. They are just hoping who they pick turns out better than the last packaged sewage they chose last election. Atleast that is the way
I see it lately…..I just try and get them to hear us loud and clear when we do start to holler and hope it’s not too late.
October 8th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Well, Laurie, let me explain how our electoral system works.
Under the Electoral College system, voters in each state determine the winner in that state. This theoretically represents the intention of the voters, unless someone hacks into the system and adds some negative votes into the electronically calculated total, or unless some confusing butterfly ballots get people mixed up, or unless fancy touch screen machines go on the fritz, or unless polling locations run out of ballots, or unless people lined up to vote are arrested for loitering, or certain people are unjustifiably purged from the roster of voters. In reality, therefore, the vote totals represent the intention of the voter modified by a high degree of bureaucratic and technical incompetence and some possibly some intentional monkeying. Then the votes get certified by the Attorney General of the state in question, but the State Supreme Court over-rules her and calls for the votes to be counted. A bunch of rowdy activists mob the location at which the votes are being counted, and shut the whole thing down. Then there’s a challenge in federal court, and the U.S. Supreme Court sends the whole thing back to the State Supreme Court, which calls for the votes to be counted again. But then there’s ANOTHER challenge in federal court, and this time the U.S. Supreme Court orders the State Supreme Court to STOP counting the ballots, and that’s how the winner in a given state is determined. Then the winning candidate in each state receives a number of electors equivalent to the total of senators and house members from their state. Those electors are the ones who actually cast the electoral votes for president. In theory they can vote any way they want. But they’d better not, or people would throw a hissy. Whichever candidate receives the most electoral votes wins.
There, see. Couldn’t be simpler. Hope that’s clear now.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
And you all wonder why we don’t stand up and “holla” when things get out of hand. Common sense never wins.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
It’s so messed up, what would we even “holla?”
October 9th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
A brilliant gallop through the theory of the electoral college, but you forgot the most crucial part. The horses. Originally the electors were supposed to go somewhere on horses and do their voting, since there was no TV and no Email and no one knew who the candidates were and certainly not what they looked like, so the electors were supposed to spend months at a time going out on their horses and once they got there, figure out what was going on and vote for whatever made the most sense. The reason the system has gotten messed up is we stopped using the horses.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Please reconsider what your saying Alan, it just might be a good idea to have a black president! Being
that so many whites have fucked up! All ya got is a bunch of child molesting homosexuals in office!!!!!!!!
October 13th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Hey, who’s using my nickname over there at the U of M? And using the F-word too. Is that the way they talk out in Minne-snow-ta now? And what does any of that have to do with the electoral college? Jesse Ventura must have really gotten to you guys.
Get your own nickname, dude.
the REAL Alan
October 13th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Hey Fake Alan,
Better representation man! If you are gonna debate keep it clean and make some sense!
October 19th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Alan, i’ve lived under coalitions governments (both federal, regional and local) my entire live.
And yes, i believe this is more effective.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Belgium is not really huge, I think, Yo.be. I can visualize this on a smaller level. I have heard political stories from Connecticut about Democrats and Republicans cooperating frequently on local, municipal issues. I have also heard stories about how Chicago Democratic mayor and Illinois Republican governor cooperated to make deals for the O’Hare airport expansion. This metropolitan area is about 5 million. I just can’t see it for something as huge as the U.S. federal government. The federal bureacracies are huge and it’s very difficult to change any direction.
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 am
1. Size doesn’t matter, Alan.
2. You live in a land where everything’s possilbe.
3. Your U.S. federal government isn’t exactly huge. We’re talking about less than 450 elected house members. The Indian parliament has almost 550 members. The european parliament is made up of almost 750 members. The latter two are both elected using a representative electoral system.
4. The reason you can’t see any cooperation on the federal level is exactly because of your plurality system: ‘where the majority is always right’. Although far from perfect, coalitions have to find out ‘what’s right for a majority’.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Dear Comrades, allow me to bring “piece” and harmony into this
lively debate. Althou my debating almost always made me a winner,
I’d like to recommend Nancy Pelosi or Hillary! to run your lives.
It’s a sure thing. Both must have researched my work, even IQ level
is similar to mine. Hmmm..Hrrr. Just clearing my throat (Hell has very cheap
vodka).
So my point. There never going to be discord and stalemates they for these
two He-She’s will use my methods to keep all agree to their decrees.
The unhappy will have to report to Boxcar # 877867677989 to their sensitvity
reeducation camp in Oklahoma, where our comrades already making headway by arresting
people who smoke tobacco. In my time Lead was common cause of death..Oh yes, time change
and Yet they stay the same.
Well that’s it. Now time for vodka and game of capitalist Monopoly with Kennedys,
just waitnig for Ted. Damn hot in here!
Lovingly Yours,
Comrade Stalin.
P.S. Also Hot feministas down here are can’t quite hold their liqior. Shame..
Yo