 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Proportional Representation |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day                   Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| What are you guys' thoughts on proportional representation (many european countries) versus winner take all (U.S., England, most notiably)?
Living in the states, I've been used to U.S. politics so far and I don't like how it works because often many issues are drawn on party lines. This means I see very little progress because both sides always bicker. I find proportional representation more appealing since it often produces representation that supposely models the population. |
|||
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit   Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| PR is nice and I support it. It just depends on what system you're going to impliment. There are many, many, many ways to do it. And each one has pros and cons. The downside to PR, all the time, is that it normally leads to unstable governments. Case in point: Italy, Germany, New Zealand. But this means that smaller parties can rise up and offer a greater breadth and diversify the electoral system. It has a moderating effect on the bigger parties and generally more positive and non-partisan laws get passed because you HAVE to work with the other parties. | |||
witeasprinwow Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6404 days Last view: 6404 days |
| ||
Originally posted by neotransotaku I am glad you put supposedly in italics. I think proportional representation is a great idea for some places and countries, but it is a very BAD idea for the United States. The US Federal Government does not have to worry about just one small area, but it has a large mass to rule over. The culture and environment of many of these places are greatly different from others. For example, snowy Alaska and sunny Florida will likely have very different views on many issues, limited to but not including drilling for oil, tourism, global warming, hunting, deforestation, the destruction of swampland for commercial use, highway regulations, ect ect ect. To be brief, I believe that proportional representation would make a mess of this because of so many competing parties. In the two-party system we filter out all but the most important issues across the US and put them into two parties. However, if proportional representation were installed at a Federal level, we would have a LOT of places with a LOT of different, individual state-level issues. Since small parties can feasibly get elected in a representational system, I think this could throw the system into chaos. Maybe a lot of different parties get elected and it becomes a mess to move anything through Congress, or maybe one large state (California?) overpowers a lot of other states by being more unified than the others and takes up too much of the congressional pie. I think it could be feasible at a state government level, however. This is all just my stupid opinion, so don't take it too seriously. I haven't formally researched it or anything; This is just the impression I get from taking government classes. EDIT: I edited out some of my original post, because... Well, I made it sound like I knew what I was talking about much more than I really do. Yes, I am a dumbass. (edited by witeasprinwow on 06-14-06 12:04 AM) (edited by witeasprinwow on 06-14-06 12:13 AM) |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Keep the HoR how it is, change the Senate to proportional rep. With Congress's disgustingly high incumbency rate, there needs to be a better circuitbreaker, a more dynamic and genuinely representative house, and a senate where every state just gets two first-past-the-post senators isn't it. | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6301 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Very good point, witeasprinwow. The US is so much larger than other countries that have proportional representation that it would create a congress of so many parties that nothing would get done unless the parties banded together and we'd be left with what we have now. I do think the US needs to rethink it's federal government system because as of now there are very easy ways to get elected that don't really depend on much of your opinions on the issues, just your opion on one or two of the issues. For example, if you're running in a fairly conservative state, you bring up abortion, same sex marriage, or anything highly liberal and you can basically win by saying you don't support them and your opponant does. I've heard people say they won't vote for someone who isn't strickly against abortion (even if they are against creating a greater chance for abortions and would actually like to limit the number of abortions) and therefore will vote for someone who maybe hasn't said anything about their opinions on economics, healthcare, social welfare, foreign policy, etc. I hate how much our country is run on party lines and how politicians use that to get what they want even at the expense of the welfare of the country. For example, the representative from Pittsburgh said that he would vote to allow the amendment on same sex marriage to go to a vote because he believed it would help the party get more strength in the upcoming elections but said that he was very much so against the bill and would not vote for it when it came to passing it as a piece of legislature. And democrats are equally guilty, that's just the only example I have right now but things like that go on all the time and it's just so upsetting to see the mindsets and ethics of the people that are running our country. | |||
Squash Monster Bouncy Since: 11-18-05 From: Right next to myself. Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| While proportional representation makes more sense and just feels right, for a large country like the US, proportional representation would be a naturally bad idea for reasons we've already went into -- regional interests would fragment the country and make it less stable. If we were to switch to a proportional system, we would have to do so in a way that does not break the country into too many regional interests. While this seems rather unlikely, as the larger regions would all be able elect a representative who represents them only, there are ways around this, particularly if you don't mind stealing some ideas from the French.
The system I'd like to see would work as follows: -- Any group of people large enough to fill all the representative seats can become a recognized party by submitting an ordered list of reps, n signatures, and a document describing their party platform to the public archives. -- On election day one, everybody can vote for any party in the nation. -- Every party that gets over x percent of the votes gets to participate in election day two. -- On election day two, everybody can vote for any of the parties that passed. -- Each of these parties gets as many representatives as their percentage indicates, chosen from the top of their official list and going down. For example, if the country had 300 seats and your party won with 50% of the votes, the first guy on your list would be President/Prime Minister, and the next 150 people on your list would get seats. |
|||
|
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| That system is expensive, though. Imagine the recounts of a two party system that takes days to finish up.
PR makes sense because it ALLOWS for regional voices to be heard. Which is the point of democracy. Make opinions heard - not stifling them so that laws can be passed more easily. Less debate = less consequence for the lawmakers. |
|||
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE  Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Also, we can't get people to vote in one election, let alone two. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| White, where you see the two-party system as filtering out parties and views as a good thing, I see it as bad. It allows a single party to gain power and run rough-shod over everything, and makes a mockery of the principle of checks and balances on power.
A plurality of voices and the necessity for coalitions means that, essentially, parties have to negotiate and compromise and be pragmatic. It can tend to diffuse polarisation and absolutism as parties find themselves havign to actually work issues out instead of just passing whatever they want. Sure, it might make the system less efficient... but firstly, is what America has efficient? And secondly, why is efficiency in legislation such a valuable commodity? One-party states can efficiently and swiftly make decisions, why not just have that? |
|||
|
witeasprinwow Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6404 days Last view: 6404 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon I agree that this is a valid problem with the two-party system. Look at the abortion or gay marriage debates; almost nobody is willing to take a hard stance on it. I just feel that the other possibilities could be worse. I never though about the option of having PR in the House and not in the Senate; that seems to have be plausible. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I'd actually prefer the reverse. A prop-rep upper house. I know that requires some constitutional change but then, the American constitution is a dumb way to run an electoral system. (For 3 reasons--the uncompetitive senate races, the fact that there's no standardised electoral system and states run their own shows in federal elections, and the fact that DC is unrepresented) | |||
Imajin Bot Local Moderator Currently affected by 'No syndrome' ---!!!  Since: 12-05-05 From: Camineet, Palm Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I don't support proportional representation. I think that it wouldn't make any serious difference, and would likely cause problems... I mean, people in California would have to vote for fifty-three representatives...
I also don't think that it would affect the two-party system to any great degree. Maybe you would have one or two Green congressmen from states like Vermont, but in general the Republicans and Democrats would likely still dominate. I believe even in nations with Proportional Representation, you often see two dominating parties even if outside parties have some more say. With the Republican/Democrat system so ingrained into Americans heads, it would likely survive. |
|||
|
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| Of course there are dominant parties, but looking at Italy you see the slew of parties that gain representation. In New Zealand too there is a fairly sizeable list of parties (with national and labour being the two main parties) - although I don't like the MMP system that they have. There are more efficient systems out there that allow for more fair elections. Italy is really interesting because of how Berlusconi decided to fuck with the elections in that country. But if you look at the numbers the dominant parties (excluding Forza Italia) are made up of smaller movements that kind of bond together to form quasi-parties. This allows for additional opposition to the government and lends more strength to the all important grass roots democracy.
Generally there will always be two major parties in a given country. There is always a right wing party that gains strength because it is more moderate than the other right wingers and fuels itself on reaction. Then there is an opposition party to it that can gain power. It can be left wing, centre left, or in the case of some nations, a little bit more to the right or to the centre. (edited by ziffhasnoaim/password on 06-15-06 10:50 PM) |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| Being one lazy-ass mofo, I only read the first couple of posts. PR may be difficult on the national level for the U.S. State Reps and local offices tend to have more of an effect on local happenings an thus more influence over our day to day lives. Regional parties on state, county and city levels have gained power without PR. The Populist Party, the Progressive Party, Greenback, Free Soil and various other parties have shown regional power in the past. PR on the smaller level would help smaller parties now, but mostly out of determined bloc voting and wide spread voter apathy for these "small" elections. Last election a leftist/socialist/green candidate had a strong third party showing, getting a little under 10% of the vote. Were all the positions up instead of just one, the county would have a fairly strong alternative party to contend with. But the problem is if that particular election was for state seats the left/socialist/green party would have made up a percentage which was likely not accurate of the overall view of the people. Thanks to mass voter apathy, a determined outside party could make a very strong bid for power with a relative lack of support. While I would love to see a Leftist-type party make a positive change, a ultra-right party could easily do the same. I'm not trying to defend our two-party system- I think it locks out many legitimate alternative views- it could create stability issues in the U.S. PR is a great system if you have high voter turn out, but potentially destabilizing in an often apathetic democracy.
I know that was sort of a ramble. But fuck, I'm tired. I'll try to get back on any questions and maybe go back to clarify the post later. |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Proportional Representation |
| |
