|
Thank you for explaining the first-past-the-post two-party poo poo-heap
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
In regards to the two party system: Almost every, if not every time there's been a significant third party candidate in a US presidential election, it spells certain doom for the party that they can draw more votes from, because the votes are split between the two candidates with the more similar ideologies. (among other reasons) Roosevelt cost Taft in 1912 Thurmond cost Dewey in 1948 Perot cost Bush in 1992 Nader cost Gore in 2000 If Trump runs third party this year it is all but certain it will be the same result for the GOP. A popular third party is a death sentence for the party that they siphon the most votes from. In terms of gerrymandering, one of the ways it's abused to reduce the representation of minority voters (whom usually vote Democrat) is abusing a law that was intended to protect them from underrepresentation. Originally, districts were redrawn to dilute minority presence by splitting them. That guaranteed no representation from non-whites. Then a pesky law was passed in 1965 called the Voting Rights Act, which prohibited redistricting to only have white representation, and mandated the creation of majority-minority districts. The solution to stay racist while being totally not racist was to redraw the districts so instead of getting no districts, they get one, or as few as possible by cramming everybody who isn't white into a single district. Even though they do technically have representation, because they were drawn to give them as few total districts as possible, their interests always get outvoted. Minority votes are now suddenly becoming a major issue for the GOP (not just in the presidential race, in which districts are irrelevant but state electoral votes are) because the ratio of white to non-whites has been dropping for decades, and if they're too blatant in their redistricting it'll eventually hit the supreme court and the whole thing they have set up could become completely undone with a bad ruling for them. So now they actually have to deal with all the poo poo that they've been giving the very same minority groups for decades and consider their existence a significant threat to themselves and their party that they could previously just ignore. Edit: Voter prevention is still fairly effective though. Edit 2: For non-Americans, literacy tests were tests given in some states from some point after abolition to the 1960's that advertised itself as "Make sure the person has at least basic education to understand who and what they're actually voting for" In practice, they were deliberately designed to be unpassable, and would only ever be given to blacks at the polling booth. Here is a couple of examples. The Alabama one was in practice an incredibly difficult civics test (you need 90% correct to be able to vote) and the Louisiana one went as far as employing an optical illusion, in a test where you had 30 questions, 10 minutes, and if you failed one you weren't allowed to vote. klosterdev has issued a correction as of 09:51 on Jul 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
MMP + shortest splitline districts drawn by computer (and double-checked by a strictly nonpartisan committee) after every census imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:MMP + shortest splitline districts drawn by computer (and double-checked by a strictly nonpartisan committee) after every census imo It would end up like the voting machines, source code will be owned by a corporation and closed trust us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:OP here is the answer: Living in one of these districts is great. You get to share a congressman with people half a state away while the local methlands get equal representation at less than tenth the population 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
klosterdev posted:
1) More democrats voted for Bush than for Gore; 2) The final vote tallies in contested states, after all actual votes were really counted, showed Gore won; 3) SCOTUS made the final decision, and it was against Gore. "Nader cost Gore in 2000" is one of those arguments that Democrats like to use to spread FUD about third party efforts, but it isn't really true. The only modern elections in which a third-party had an effect was the elections of 1992 and 1996. And none of those had much to do with the shape of Congressional districts in any case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Feather posted:
Ahahhahahaha Hoooly poo poo. What in the ever living gently caress is the "correct" answer to the question aside from "white person"? Ok, yea it's y=x^2 but there's a fuckton of ways to flunk that question. A single vertical line ceases to be a line when it is broken up into 2 equal parts. It becomes 2 vertical lines. There's no such thing as a line that is both horizontal and curved. Even if you were to essentially draw y=x^2, it becomes horizontal only at the vertex which is a loving point. A point can't be defined as "straight" or "crooked". The way the question is worded, there is no solution like all the other ambiguous poo poo on that piece of poo poo test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
The easy answer is that for anything to change, hundreds of people with power would have to vote and work against their own interests. Trying to think of a time that's ever happened...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:01
|
|
Tater Love 
|
When people start dogging on the two party system I feel for them, but it seems like a lot of people ignore that there has been more than two parties in the history of the United states to hold a majority, the most relevant one being the collapse of the Whigs and ascendancy of the republican party in the mid 19th century, although I realize many Whigs simply went democrat or republican, it's proof that it's possible to one day see something such as the collapse of the modern republican party over tea party/moderate republican strife, these things can create a power vacuum big enough to allow a new party with realigned or entirely different interests to become dominant. You'll probably never see a green party majority sure, their scope is too narrow to be anything but a joke in america, but the radicalization happening on the left and right in the last 20 years will eventually produce another party collapse like the Whigs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Paul Krugman posted:Right now, if inherent importance were all that mattered, I wouldn’t be writing about the effects of sprawl, or the Fed succession, or even, probably, about China’s brick-wall problem. I would instead be writing all the time about the looming chaos in U.S. governance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Feather posted:1) More democrats voted for Bush than for Gore; 2) The final vote tallies in contested states, after all actual votes were really counted, showed Gore won; 3) SCOTUS made the final decision, and it was against Gore. If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been president, idk why this is contentious
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Gore would've been president anyway if not for election fraud
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:When people start dogging on the two party system I feel for them, but it seems like a lot of people ignore that there has been more than two parties in the history of the United states to hold a majority, the most relevant one being the collapse of the Whigs and ascendancy of the republican party in the mid 19th century, although I realize many Whigs simply went democrat or republican, it's proof that it's possible to one day see something such as the collapse of the modern republican party over tea party/moderate republican strife, these things can create a power vacuum big enough to allow a new party with realigned or entirely different interests to become dominant. You'll probably never see a green party majority sure, their scope is too narrow to be anything but a joke in america, but the radicalization happening on the left and right in the last 20 years will eventually produce another party collapse like the Whigs. I don't see how waiting for a party collapse is a viable solution to Congress and America's governance problem. Even if you changed what two parties existed, those two parties would still be subject to all the problems already mentioned in this thread (election finance, gerrymandering, constitutional structural issues, etc.). If your interest is to vote for a left party and you have no hope of or interest in structural reform, then yeah sure wait for some national Socialist-Progressive Party to be born and somehow become one of the major two parties. Also people dog on the two-party system because it is objectively bad. Our FPTP voting system is horrible and no country founded today would implement it. People generally want their government to be competently run and organized and wish for it to improve in areas where it's failing. GrumpyDoctor posted:If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been president, idk why this is contentious There is no way to know if enough people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore instead of voting for some other third party or staying home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:There is no way to know if enough people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore instead of voting for some other third party or staying home. Skepticism that Gore wouldn't have drawn 600 votes from the 97000 Nader got in Florida approaches "unreasonable."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
op here is the reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOg4bDlZyAA
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:Gore would've been president anyway if not for election fraud Gore would've still been president WITH electoral fraud against him if only the Supreme Court had ruled correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:the roman senate lasted almost a thousand years, we arent even a quarter through it and we arent calling the executive imperator yet the roman senate lasted over 1,900 years  you know the senate left the western empire long before it collapsed
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Skepticism that Gore wouldn't have drawn 600 votes from the 97000 Nader got in Florida approaches "unreasonable." Well okay, he probably would in this case, but people should not assume that all Green (or other third parties on the left) voters would just throw in for Democrats. These people did go into the voting booth and specifically decided not to vote for Al Gore after all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Nader voters in Florida are one of several factors that in nearly any other arrangement would have left Al Gore the winner of both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Focusing on them specifically is silly, as a slight change in nearly any of the factors would have resulted in President Gore. However it is true that without Nader Gore wins. He also wins if the Supreme Court doesn't gently caress it all up, he campaigns with a slightly different strategy, embraces his post 2000 Al Goreness, contests the Florida result differently, focuses slightly more resources into New Hampshire, or several other factors I'm probably not remembering. 2000 was an epic poo poo storm of the like that only comes together electorally once or so a century. Other poo poo storms of a similar nature are 1824 and 1876.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:
It really is awful, and I hope my post didn't imply I thought our FPTP system was anything but poo poo, but people tend to describe it as hopeless for a third party to break in, and it's only half true. Parties with a narrow scope like Green or ideological parties like every flavor of socialist and communist, are totally hopeless and ultimately wasted votes, and 'big' tent parties will only ever change when issues arise that tear a party apart like slavery ultimately did to the Whigs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
its almost as though the solution is to find a common ground on specific issues a platform of sorts and work toward that within a coalition, a sort of big tent popular front but first we must determine whether we support veganism or vegetarianism
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
just a reminder to all you libtards using big words like "corruption" and claiming that "money in politics is evil": it's only corruption if someone outright says "here, have this money so i can buy your vote on this bill." otherwise, it's clearly just political speech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Excelzior posted:Gore would've still been president WITH electoral fraud against him if only the Supreme Court had ruled correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:just a reminder to all you libtards using big words like "corruption" and claiming that "money in politics is evil": it's only corruption if someone outright says "here, have this money so i can buy your vote on this bill." otherwise, it's clearly just political speech. I think of people starving But do you think I care Let them all die hungry So I can breathe their air outlaw political speech that can buy caramel machiattos allow political speech that cannot buy caramel machiattos
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
How was it even in their power to stop the recount? No law was challenged, it didn't go through the normal appeals process, and they even had the nerve to put a clause in the ruling that it basically doesn't count for any legal precedent. It literally seems like the justices saw what was happening and decided to weild judicial review in such a way I haven't heard of before or since. Did the supreme court overstep its power there? I feel like people should have been a lot more angry and pushed for an amendment in reaction to that, because it's still very weird to me and I don't think I've ever heard a reasonably unbiassed source give a solid answer if Bush v. Gore was a lawful action of the court
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
I wait with baited breath for the day Antonin Scalia croaks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Did the supreme court overstep its power there? I feel like people should have been a lot more angry and pushed for an amendment in reaction to that, because it's still very weird to me and I don't think I've ever heard a reasonably unbiassed source give a solid answer if Bush v. Gore was a lawful action of the court If Gore had been more popular there might have been sufficient outrage, but at that point everyone was just loving tired of the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Concordat posted:I wait with baited breath for the day Antonin Scalia croaks. This is foolish. The true justice is that he lives forever, the lone conservative on the bench.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Is there anything more to why Citizens United passed other than "The Republican old men all decided they liked corruption and money in politics"? Or was it just that the old men decided to say gently caress it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:Is there anything more to why Citizens United passed other than "The Republican old men all decided they liked corruption and money in politics"? Or was it just that the old men decided to say gently caress it? I blame ALEC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:Is there anything more to why Citizens United passed other than "The Republican old men all decided they liked corruption and money in politics"? Or was it just that the old men decided to say gently caress it? Scalia and Thomas went to Koch retreats for political strategizing and Thomas' wife got money from them, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Hajj Podge posted:Scalia and Thomas went to Koch retreats for political strategizing and Thomas' wife got money from them, too. So... Eat the rich? (When Scalia and Thomas die, that will be a glorious day)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:Is there anything more to why Citizens United passed other than "The Republican old men all decided they liked corruption and money in politics"? Or was it just that the old men decided to say gently caress it? John Roberts might be the most gullible man in America. But they didn't explicitly say it was a bribe, guys. There's probably a completely legitimate reason to give a politician $100 million. Also the VRA seems like it's kind of mean towards all those Southerners. They did just promise they're totally not going to discriminate. They gave their word, guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
If Gore had won the democrats would have been the party that let 9/11 happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:If Gore had won the democrats would have been the party that let 9/11 happen. While that is probably true, that is also irrelevant to the thread topic, which currently is the merits of eating the rich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Living in one of these districts is great. You get to share a congressman with people half a state away while the local methlands get equal representation at less than tenth the population Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:If Gore had won the democrats would have been the party that let 9/11 happen. illuminati confirmed, this hole runs deep
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Who exactly is responsible for this, actually? The Warren Court, LBJ, Republicans, and the NAACP http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0611.morris.html quote:In one sense, attempting to rig the electoral system in one’s favor is an art of politicking as old as the stump speech or the filibuster. Gerrymandering pre-dates the Founding Fathers; the term itself was coined in 1811, when Massachussets Governor Elbridge Gerry was derided for approving a district for a supporter shaped like a salamander. But redistricting’s modern era only really began in the 1960s, when an energetic Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren established the principle of “one man, one vote,” and Lyndon Johnson’s Voting Rights Act required the creation of districts in which minorities could conceivably be elected. These mandates caused nearly every state to redraw district lines according to the census, which officials did using adding machines, magic markers, and maps pinned to office walls. The first redrawing occurred during a high-water mark of Democratic power, and the subsequent flurry of gerrymandering helped cement Democratic dominance of many state legislatures, as well as of the House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:If Gore had won the democrats would have been the party that let 9/11 happen. From what I've read the outgoing Clinton admin advised the Bush people that they should keep an eye on al queda and the taliban and they said "gently caress off libtards iraq is the real problem" So maybe not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:43
|
|