Would you support this?

Would you support this? (Full Version)

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

Message

DarkSteven -> Would you support this? (12/8/2010 5:53:31 PM)
Right now, elections are winner-take-all. If I win an election over someone by a single vote, then I take office and he or she doesn't. Would you support a different system, where if I get 60% of the popular vote and my opponent gets 40%, then I get 60% of a vote and he or she gets 40%? This would result in a more representative legislative body, and also make ridiculous scenarios like Miller/Murkowski moot. It would also make gerrymandering pointless.

pahunkboy -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 5:59:50 PM)
IMO more issues ought to be ballot initiatives. PA has very few of those...

Arpig -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 6:09:56 PM)
Might work in a two-party setup, but would be total chaos in a system with multiple parties.

pahunkboy -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 6:10:48 PM)
It sounds like a power sharing arrangement.

Musicmystery -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 6:25:08 PM)
So all you have to do to get a vote in Congress is run? Come on. What would you do for the primaries?

DarkSteven -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 6:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Might work in a two-party setup, but would be total chaos in a system with multiple parties. Why? Legislators can vote Yes or No, same as now. The only chaos will be with horse trading and backroom deals. It will make earmarks and pork more difficult.

Arpig -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 6:35:58 PM)
Well, in Canada you have 3 to 5 candidates in every riding (district for you guys), this would increse the number of politicians drawing full pay and pensions enormously, and you would have a shit load of batshit types with 1% of a vote. We have a Natural Law party that wants to teach everybody "yogic levitation" which will result in good Karma and make Canada a paradise of some sort.... do we really want people like this in parliament or congress...all they have to do is run a candidate in every riding and get at least 1 vote and they flood the damned legislature with useless moronic members who will try introduce bizarre laws and programs, wasting time and resources. Imagine a congress with 3000 or so members, none of whom has a full vote. It will increase porkbarreling and earmarks exponentially, as you will have to buy off 3 or 4 people to get a single vote, getting a majority would be damn near impossible so sweet fuck all would be accomplished. I realize that the US federal Gvt is designed not to work efficiently, but doubling or tripling (or worse) the number of members and reducing the influence within the body of everybody would render it uttely impotent.

TheHeretic -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 7:27:05 PM)
I think more proportional representation would be a good thing, Steve, but, no offense, I can't come up with a more hare-brained scheme to do it, than what you've raised here.

DarkSteven -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 8:03:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think more proportional representation would be a good thing, Steve, but, no offense, I can't come up with a more hare-brained scheme to do it, than what you've raised here. Yeah, Arpig's posts about Canada kinda convinced me.

popeye1250 -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 9:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy IMO more issues ought to be ballot initiatives. PA has very few of those... PaHunk, I agree, I'd like to see more binding referendums, especially on the state and federal level. I want the govt to "ask" The People what we want!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 10:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy IMO more issues ought to be ballot initiatives. PA has very few of those... PaHunk, I agree, I'd like to see more binding referendums, especially on the state and federal level. I want the govt to "ask" The People what we want! Yeah, California is proof positive of the effectiveness of referendums. Just declare a State of Emergency to make up for the electorates abject ignorance.

luckydawg -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 10:03:16 PM)
How about converting the House to a system where you vote nationally for a party. Then the seats get assigned by %. Say 200 memebers, if the greens get 3% of the vote they get 6 seats. We already have changed the way the Senate works so keep that as it is, with Senators tied to geographic areas.

Termyn8or -> RE: Would you support this? (12/8/2010 10:09:19 PM)
FR Proportional representation would be the result if it were implemented correctly. But then we can't pay all these people. Why do we pay them anyway ? Why does it cost so much. Pay them what the soldiers who fight their wars get paid and let's see what happens. There are other countries that have more than two political parties and in some way partially accomplish this, just a bit. The assholes here would never do it right. You think it's bad enough supporting over five hundred leeches all the time ? Well think about retirement. If we have to keep paying them for the rest of their lives they'll break the countr........ never mind, they already did that. T

truckinslave -> RE: Would you support this? (12/9/2010 8:45:24 AM)
No. IMO many of the changes we have made to the Constitution have been mistakes. The law of unintended (and entirely unforseen) consequences would wreak hell with this one. Starting with, I think, depressing the vote.

Musicmystery -> RE: Would you support this? (12/9/2010 2:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg How about converting the House to a system where you vote nationally for a party. Then the seats get assigned by %. Say 200 memebers, if the greens get 3% of the vote they get 6 seats. We already have changed the way the Senate works so keep that as it is, with Senators tied to geographic areas. The trouble with that is the Constitution. This goes against States' rights.

DomImus -> RE: Would you support this? (12/9/2010 4:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 PaHunk, I agree, I'd like to see more binding referendums, especially on the state and federal level. I want the govt to "ask" The People what we want! Referendums are generally a horrendous idea. One step away from mob rule. The founding fathers were smart enough to sidestep a system where the people self govern in this manner. Some days when I look at all the morons in Washington I wonder if it could get any worse then I look at all the morons in California and I think "Yes, it can".

Musicmystery -> RE: Would you support this? (12/9/2010 4:22:20 PM)
Amen.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125