|
Shear Modulus posted:beto is a hundred times better than ossoff that is messed up, he should talk about healthcare for all
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
ShriekingMarxist posted:any interest in a rabb.it drunken hang room where we watch lovely cable news coverage on midterm night? Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
Why Dems can't take the Senate, there are 50 states and 30 of them are mostly CHUD, yet those 30 states only hold 20% of the population. You are hosed forever unless you are willing to risk your comfortable shitposting chair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Why Dems can't take the Senate, there are 50 states and 30 of them are mostly CHUD, yet those 30 states only hold 20% of the population. You are hosed forever unless you are willing to risk your comfortable shitposting chair. if you want to be happier, by 2040 70% of US population will be living in 15 states (you can guess which ones) which means 30% will vote for 70% of senators (you can guess their demography and party identification)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
We need to civilize the chudlands
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Typo posted:if you want to be happier, by 2040 70% of US population will be living in 15 states (you can guess which ones) the US would be better off if we abolished the Senate. Seeing as how the US has been held together by the military not letting anyone leave since the Civil War, and representation isn't afforded to the territories for the same reason, there isn't any reason for the Sherman Compromise anymore if we could somehow end it, but that's not going to happen. So we should go all-in and admit even Guam as a state, plus two Senate seats for Native Americans if they want them
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:the US would be better off if we abolished the Senate. Seeing as how the US has been held together by the military not letting anyone leave since the Civil War, and representation isn't afforded to the territories for the same reason, there isn't any reason for the Sherman Compromise anymore if we could somehow end it, but that's not going to happen. So we should go all-in and admit even Guam as a state, plus two Senate seats for Native Americans if they want them Just make the US senate look more like the Canadian senate it can delay bills from the house and send it down for revisions a few times but otherwise if the house wants to pass something it passes. Maybe let it keep its power to confirm cabinet/judicial appointees, but render it mostly irrelevant for legislations. Typo has issued a correction as of 15:57 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:Just make the US senate look more like the Canadian senate You and what army
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:Just make the US senate look more like the Canadian senate Yeah because how could that possibly go wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
I changed my mind and they should keep the Senate, but it should use the same districts as the House but with the six-year staggered term limits and 60% vote threshholds enforced constitutionally, because there's value in making legislation hard to pass and thereby allowing longer-term plans more time to work
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Keep the Senate but don't let them vote on anything and also their offices lock from the outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Get rid of the house and Senate and replace them with the committee of public safety
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I changed my mind and they should keep the Senate, but it should use the same districts as the House but with the six-year staggered term limits and 60% vote threshholds enforced constitutionally, because there's value in making legislation hard to pass and thereby allowing longer-term plans more time to work then literally nothing ever passes, I don't think you can get 60% for anything in the house as is
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:We need to civilize the chudlands or we abolish the senate and firebomb the chudlands
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:then literally nothing ever passes, I don't think you can get 60% for anything in the house as is 55% or some other arbitrary threshhold, then, but maybe a staggered copy of the House as opposed to the Senate would make it hard enough as-is without a >50% rule
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Remember that up until 1913, Senators were not directly elected by popular vote, they were elected by each state's legislature. They were always intended to be an only semi-democratic check on the House of Representatives, who it was assumed would not be able to govern effectively because they'd be beholden to the popular rabble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
basically the thing americans refuse to accept because they think that the US government is best in the world is that parliamentary systems are superior for the 21st century. What america actually wants is a 5-6 party system and coalition governments in parliament, then the dem-socialists can vote for the DSA and divorce themselves from the democrats entirely, and the TRUMP blue-collar whites can ditch the Paul Ryan types, so you have the socialist party-Democrats-Kasich Republicans-Christian ted cruz party-Trump nationalist white people's party on the american political spectrum but in real life americans all think they want a third party but are too dumb to figure out that 3rd parties can't exist for any length of time in america because of how the electoral system is designed, so the broken 18th century system keeps shambling forward Typo has issued a correction as of 17:25 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Remember that up until 1913, Senators were not directly elected by popular vote, they were elected by each state's legislature. They were always intended to be an only semi-democratic check on the House of Representatives, who it was assumed would not be able to govern effectively because they'd be beholden to the popular rabble. it didn't work out because the selection process by the legislature was incredibly corrupt, popular election for senators was a reaction against what amounted to outright bribery to buy senate seats
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Get rid of the house and Senate and replace them with the Fixed that for ya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:basically the thing americans refuse to accept because they think that the US government is best in the world is that parliamentary systems are superior for the 21st century. I'm with you on a parlimentary system being way better but lol that you think Kasich isn't an extremist just because he's polite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'm with you on a parlimentary system being way better but lol that you think Kasich isn't an extremist just because he's polite. all things are relative comrade
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Typo posted:basically the thing americans refuse to accept because they think that the US government is best in the world is that parliamentary systems are superior for the 21st century. I don't want this because it just absolutely neuters everyone and you end up with neolib centrists running everything into the ground leaving no choice but the far right. See: Europe
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Parliamentary systems are superior I insist as salvini and orban shovel another Muslim child into a meat grinder while macron jerks off in the corner
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:I don't want this because it just absolutely neuters everyone and you end up with neolib centrists running everything into the ground leaving no choice but the far right. See: Europe As opposed to what's happening under the current system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
There is no magic system of government that's going to nullify real strong trends in the attitudes and culture of the population itself, without also being autocratic. Even then, as strongman dictator/council of elders/vanguard party you still need to pay attention to the whims of the larger population, or at least some significant segments of it. You can't pull full communism out of thin air and expect everyone to go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Australia has a relatively good ballot system and mandatory voting, and they rank right up there as one of the most cheerfully and unashamedly racist countries in the world
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'm with you on a parlimentary system being way better but lol that you think Kasich isn't an extremist just because he's polite. Bad use of Kasich but the point overall is good. That particular wing is Republicans who don't give a poo poo about the culture war and just want low taxes for millionaires and for us to remain an oligarchy. If that means being theoretically okay with marriage equality or trans rights, that's cool, so long as it doesn't actually cost anything. They have historically been quite willing to engage in culture war poo poo to get votes, but in this scenario, they no longer have to do that because the other two right of center parties cover that. That isn't to say that they will also support marriage equality, trans rights, etc. They're probably at least notionally opposed to it, but if they would absolutely vote for a bill to expand for-profit prisons even if it included provisions to ensure they hire more women and POCs as guards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:I don't want this because it just absolutely neuters everyone and you end up with neolib centrists running everything into the ground leaving no choice but the far right. See: Europe in Europe center-left parties are rapidly losing votes to the far-left parties, you can't have this in a 2-party system. Instead you have what amounts to informal elections called primaries to determine the composition of the left/right coalition. But primaries are much easier to tilt in favor of the incumbents (so the neolib centrists you are talking about) than general elections (lower turnouts etc) so change occurs much slower and with much more difficulty. And the results are less efficient (the losers tend to get nothing). Further more, at the end of the day something like 25-50% of the -winning- party is gonna hate the ballot they are casting and feel like their candidate isn't left/right enough for them. I don't see the advantage in the American system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:As opposed to what's happening under the current system? At least there is potential in a two party system for a more radical shift - Trump taking over the GOP, or say a Bernie takeover of the dems. A multiparty parliamentary system totally guarantees a centrist path until it utterly fails and collapses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:There is no magic system of government that's going to nullify real strong trends in the attitudes and culture of the population itself, without also being autocratic. Even then, as strongman dictator/council of elders/vanguard party you still need to pay attention to the whims of the larger population, or at least some significant segments of it. You can't pull full communism out of thin air and expect everyone to go along with it. Yeah jiggering with the mechanisms of bourgeois democracy ultimately results in little difference, the only solution is it's destruction. Anyways, about those midterms,
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:At least there is potential in a two party system for a more radical shift - Trump taking over the GOP, or say a Bernie takeover of the dems. A multiparty parliamentary system totally guarantees a centrist path until it utterly fails and collapses. What? The typical criticism of Proportionally Representative parliamentary systems is that any coalition is likely to be beholden to the whims of tiny extremist parties to maintain its majority. Because in a hypothetical DSA-Democrat parliamentary coalition, the DSA is going to have real leverage over the government and shoot down any privatisation, tux cuts, etc. Just look at what absurd amounts of power the ultra-orthodox parties in Israel hold over policy despite having only about 10% of the seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:What? The typical criticism of Proportionally Representative parliamentary systems is that any coalition is likely to be beholden to the whims of tiny extremist parties to maintain its majority. Because in a hypothetical DSA-Democrat parliamentary coalition, the DSA is going to have real leverage over the government and shoot down any privatisation, tux cuts, etc. also the dsa, or -some- kind of bernie social democratic/dem-soc (dun wanna get into it) party isn't gonna be tiny fringe party, they would prob be 20-25% of the legislature
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Seriously, you people could have had a real social safety-net by now if the U.S. House was elected proportionally. It would have made corporate lobbying much harder too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
The key is to have enough votes to play kingmaker, and it doesn't even require a parliamentary system. The Freedom Caucus does this really effectively by voting as a group and resisting leadership pulling votes off one by one. It effectively gives them veto power on any party line legislation. The key to pulling Dems left is having a similarly loyal group on the left. This could be an intra-party caucus, a separate party, or a mix. The critical mass seems to be 30-40 members. It wouldn't give them control, obviously, but it would allow them to wield outsized influence in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
if the US house was elected proportional to votes each party receives rather than first past the post in gerrymandered districts the composition right now would be something like 220-215 instead of the republicans having like 250 seats
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
There would also be more than two parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The key is to have enough votes to play kingmaker, and it doesn't even require a parliamentary system. The Freedom Caucus does this really effectively by voting as a group and resisting leadership pulling votes off one by one. It effectively gives them veto power on any party line legislation. if you believe that endorsing medicare for all is a proxy for the dem left, they are up to 139 in the house and 20 or so in the senate
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:basically the thing americans refuse to accept because they think that the US government is best in the world is that parliamentary systems are superior for the 21st century. One of the biggest hindrances in forging a multi party system in the US is that each individual state basically decides how they get their elected officials for the Federal level such that even if one state successfully adjusted themselves to have a robust multi-party system, there's 49 other states who'll trudge along as normal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Except, this isn't the 19th century anymore, political movements and ideas can garner support across state lines, just like gay marriage and marijuana legalization or whatever. Don't most states offer several constitutional amendments on the ballot for each election? I don't see why altering the state's electoral system can't be one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Except, this isn't the 19th century anymore, political movements and ideas can garner support across state lines, just like gay marriage and marijuana legalization or whatever. Don't most states offer several constitutional amendments on the ballot for each election? I don't see why altering the state's electoral system can't be one of them. also you did have significant electoral reform movements across state lines in the progressive era 100 years ago: popular election for the senate and instituting primaries as ways of selecting party candidates are 2 examples you see it today with the movement against gerrymendering and the EC
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 18:45
|
|