Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Necessary electoral reforms for the USA

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 19:47

The U.S. needs the following electoral reforms:

Unicameral legislatures (abolish the senates) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism

Party-list proportional representation for legislative elections - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

Instant runoff voting for executive elections (mayor, governor, president) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Election of the president solely by the popular vote (abolish the Electoral College).


That is all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 0:15

You know our electoral system is fucked when people are 4chan are talking about how bad it is.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 19:04

>>79
I've never been to Canada, so I wouldn't know.

>>80
WRONG.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 19:09

>>81
The idea that the electoral college should be abolished goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson's administration and probably further back than that. Not sure about proportional representation or IRV, but I'm sure they're not new ideas either.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 13:22

I agree with 1, 3, and 4, but I do not agree with proportional representation because I believe it does not represent the will of the people as well in a federal system.

In a unitary government, where the legislative assembly does not represent certain districts of the country, I would agree with a proportional rep, but in America, legislators have to represent their district, so their district and their district only should determine who gets elected.

If you allow proportional rep in a federal government, you'll end up getting districts that are predominately for one candidate and are represented by another, pretty much nullifying the entire purpose of a federal system.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 0:30

>>84
Proportional representation would never work on the federal level, but it would be fucking awesome on the state level.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 3:20

>>85
Maybe, considering state governments effectively have unlimited powers according to the constitution, meaning law is universal.

However, it still compromises the fact that if people in a certain county elect a republican, they probably want a republican representing them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 4:28

>>87
That's the whole point of proportional representation. If there are 100 seats in a lawmaking body and there is an election it will go like this:

Party A gets 30% of the votes and 30% of the seats
Party B gets 25% of the votes and 25% of the seats
Party C gets 20% of the votes and 20% of the seats
Party D gets 15% of the votes and 15% of the seats
Party E gets 10% of the votes and 10% of the seats

It's beautiful.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 12:24

>>88
Yes, I understand how proportional representation works.  What I'm saying is that in a FEDERAL system, if you did something like that, you would almost always end up having a delegate from Party B representing a district that primarily voted for Party A, which they won't be too happy about.

Ergo, I would only accept a proportional system under a unitary government, where the legislators do not represent voting districts.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 20:14

>>89
That makes sense. There is no way we are going to a get a unicameral federal legislature so proportional rep. is not going to work for the U.S. Congress. But that doesn't mean we can't have it at the state level! Let's do it!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 20:22

>>90
The problem is that most state legislators in the U.S. work under a federal system as well, because governments are then divided into counties.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 21:16

>>91
You have to draw the line somewhere. Counties are essentially federations of cities/town and yet they are all unicameral. Why aren't there members to represent each city in the county? Because they decided it would be too cumbersome and a unicameral body would work better. We can do the same for the states.

The Canadian provinces above us are all unicameral and we have one state (Nebraska) that is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:30

Doesn't seem like this will do anything to improve on shit, since governments that have these "reforms" already are still corrupt as shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:36

>>93
Hurp durp I'm apathetic and don't give a shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:39

>>94
Go back to /b/. I follow stuff and do care, but with these reforms or not a corrupt government is still a corrupt government.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 14:22

>>93
is right.  The single largest problem with American politics today is the influence of money.

How will going to unicameral legislatures change this?  There will merely be fewer politicians for Wall Street to buy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 15:18

>>96
Not to mention unicameralism will actually help shove dangerous legislation through faster since there's no longer two chambers of Congress for it to pass first.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 21:17

>>97
Are you fucking kidding me? If there is any one institution that is completely owned by Wall Street/Corps it's the fucking Senate. We get comprehensive energy/environment/healthcare/etc bills passed in 2009 and then the Senate takes 12 fucking months to pass WEAKER version of them and in some cases not even pass (see the recent Senate energy bill that is WEAKER than the one the house passed in 2009 being dropped because there is no support from the small red state senators).

Do you know how easy it is to buy the Senators from the small population states (1m or less)? Abolishing the Senate would actually reduce the influence of money on Congress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 21:35

>>98
This

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-25 13:09

>>98
Oh boo hoo. You abolish the Senate, they'll buy off the House, then you're back to square one. Also, those bills you mentioned were all big wins for the corporations, lobbying against it was little more than political theater.

>>99
Same person.

Also 100 GET!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 21:18

>>97
>>100
Same fag

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 1:38

>>98
So what you're saying is that all individuals shouldn't have the right to have an opinion regarding bills put forth in a given country's government or the right to assert influence on elected individuals regarding those bills?  If the Congress is supposed to be the "people's house" then the Senate may as well be the "business house."  They're certainly not the "states' house" like they were intended to be, and having another "people's house" is clearly redundant if all it is to do is blindly agree with the Congress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 15:13

>>101
Duh. Back to /b/, internet detective.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 16:18

>>102
I agree with everything you've said, but when people mention "Congress", they mean both the House of Representatives, and the Senate, the whole of the bicameral Federal legislature. You're right, the House was always suppose to be the people's house, and the Senate, the states' house. The Seventeenth Amendment has really twisted the whole process into a pretzel and needs to be repealed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 20:26

>>104
>The Seventeenth Amendment has really twisted the whole process into a pretzel and needs to be repealed.

BS. Election of senators hasn't changed anything. Wyoming (560,000 people) still gets the same voice as California (37,000,000 people) in the Senate. That's REPRESENTING the state. You 17th amendment abolitionists are pathetic.

Just look at all the problems Canada and the UK have with their unelected Senate.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 21:16

>>105
Canada's Senate and UK's House of Lords also haven't been bought off and paid for like the US Senate has. You Seventeenth Amendment supporters are pathetic.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:09

>>105
There are many reason's why repealing the 17th is a good thing, and it has little to do with individual state populations, which are better represented and proper in the House of Representatives, so the population argument is moot.

Excepts from Federalist Paper #62 by James Madison:

It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

Here, it is suggested that by giving the state legislatures the power to elect Senators, they are not only responsible to the legislatures of the states they represent (who they themselves are elected by the people), but also in an indirect way to the people. It was also because the states banded together with delegates from the original thirteen states to form the current Federal government in the first place, so it would be wise for them to also have a house in control of their legislatures.

So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Exactly what has happened with the state legislatures no longer holding a check on separation of powers, one could even argue that state legislatures electing Senators for their states were an additional check of power along with the rest of the Federal legislature, the Executive, and Judicial branches. Is it then any wonder why such awful legislation like the Patriot Act and such were passed? I think not.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar dangerBut as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

States clearly while it may have a harmful effect on passing "good" legislation, it will also be shown to be able to thwart bad legislation as well.

Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Shows the fallacy of a unicameral Federal legislature that could push potentially dangerous legislation (we see this in countries like Finland that change their constitution more than they change their underwear) through without a second house to hold a check on power of the other, further able to hold a check on power through the state legislatures that elected its members.

I would highlight more excerpts from this excellent, wonderfully worded paper, but you get the idea.
_____________________
References:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:14

>>105
Since you bring that up, when was the last time there was physical violence or, at least, an incomprehensible and unruly mob-ish session between representatives on the the floor of Congress?  the last (and only) historical event I can think of is the caning of Charles Sumner in the 1850s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:28

>>108
the last (and only) historical event I can think of is the caning of Charles Sumner in the 1850s.
For being against the institution of slavery in the southern states, I can certainly see why the atmosphere could turn violent.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-03 15:59

I endorse these changes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-04 0:27

>>110
Terrible! Except for electoral college.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List