Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/21/2006 1:44:55 PM EDT
Who all here agrees with me that a European-type proportional election system would be preferable to the 2-party system we currently have here?

This would also include a shift of the President to more of a chief ambassador role with severely limited powers to include no veto authority and the Congress as the only policy-making body--a Congress that any party can have a portion of if they get a certain minimum % of votes.

Of course, I'm not saying it would be a good idea given the way things are now, but simply as an alternative to the 2-party system in theory.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 1:51:57 PM EDT
No matter what, you still have a two party system. There are always two sides to an issue.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 1:53:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:22:20 PM EDT
I think both congressional and senate positions should be chosen the same way they choose jurors. By lottery.

Imagine coming home from a hard day at work and your wife hands you a letter and says congratulations, you are now the senator from _____ (state). You could catch a flight from the nearest airforce base. Fly to Washington. They could put you up at a barracks in Quantico. Bus you to Washington to do the peoples business. Then bus you back. You could eat at the mess hall. A lot of the work could be done by carreer bureaucrats, as is done now. All you would do is come up with a budget, and other sundry work. When your tenure is up you could get home the same way you got there.

I'll bet congressional sessions would be real short.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:32:48 PM EDT

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:35:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 2:36:53 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By Q3131A:
No matter what, you still have a two party system. There are always two sides to an issue.



+1,and with too many parties. Whoever wins will reflect probably less than 30 % of the nations choice. I remember an election when I was in Italy. There were so many different people runing I think the person who won had 32%, that means the majority of the nation did not want him.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:37:32 PM EDT
Democracy doesn't work.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:41:00 PM EDT
Remove the veto? No way in hell ever. There are a LOT of problems with our current system, but gutting a critical check in the checks and balances is NOT the solution.

shooter
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:42:28 PM EDT
Proportional representation is a BAD idea.

Think about it- if my piddly little party gets 2% of the vote, we get 2% of the seats. Your party gets 4% of the vote you get 4% of the seats. Every other tin pot group gets a couple of seats and what do you get? A series of unstable coalition governments that cant function and fall apart at the first hint of a policy. Like Italy or Weimar Germany.

Also, what representitive do you lobby? You don't really have one, because all of the seats in parliament are distributed according to percentage, not to geographical area or constituancy.

We have proportional representation in our Senate. This works rather well because, 1stly, government is formed in the house of representitives, not the Senate, so you don't get unstable coalitions, and secondly, the government (usually) has to negotiate with the minor parties and the opposition to get their legislation through, so it acts on a check on executive power. I would not want proportional representation in our house of reps!
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:46:46 PM EDT
I don't vote for political parties I vote candidates. So. . .no.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:48:05 PM EDT
Also, not having a strong head of state basically leaves everything to the legislature- a bad idea.

One of the many things that I admire about the US system is that a strong president provides a check on the congress. Here, our Governor-General acts as a rubber stamp to the parliament therefore, there is no check on the power of the legislature.

Your strong Congress and strong head of state act as a check on each other- one can't go too far without the other reigning them in.

This may not be how it works out all the time in practise, but its a damn sight better than our 'Washminster" system.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:52:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!


Exactly. Perot garnered something like 15% of the vote in '92 and ran a terrible campaign. Campaign finance laws do more to shackle us to the two party system than free us from it.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:59:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!



How would you describe the current system if not 2-party?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:06:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!



How would you describe the current system if not 2-party?



It is only two party because people think it is two party system.
The Republican Party was founded as a third party.

Someone, somehow has fooled people into thinking they only have two choices.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:09:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
Who all here agrees with me that a European-type proportional election system would be preferable to the 2-party system we currently have here?

This would also include a shift of the President to more of a chief ambassador role with severely limited powers to include no veto authority and the Congress as the only policy-making body--a Congress that any party can have a portion of if they get a certain minimum % of votes.

Of course, I'm not saying it would be a good idea given the way things are now, but simply as an alternative to the 2-party system in theory.





1 key word to consider............................................


REPUBLIC
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:09:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!



How would you describe the current system if not 2-party?


The government does not say that you must vote "column A" or "column B." If people really wanted more than two major parties, they would get off of their fat Jenny Craig asses and do something about it. The fact is, it is easier to bitch about the "two party monopoly" than volunteer time to help setup a viable alternative party.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:11:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!



How would you describe the current system if not 2-party?



It is only two party because people think it is two party system.
The Republican Party was founded as a third party.

Someone, somehow has fooled people into thinking they only have two choices.



So if you were to explain the system to someone who knew nothing about it, you would say, "disregarding the fact that the Presidents have come from only 2 parties for over 100 years, there are many, many parties that come very close to winning every election. It is just chance that only these 2 ever do."

It is not limited to 2 parties, but in practice it is a 2-party system.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:21:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

But we don't live in a two party system!
Gahhh!!!



How would you describe the current system if not 2-party?


The government does not say that you must vote "column A" or "column B." If people really wanted more than two major parties, they would get off of their fat Jenny Craig asses and do something about it. The fact is, it is easier to bitch about the "two party monopoly" than volunteer time to help setup a viable alternative party.



So, if gun owners wanted to repeal the 86 MG ban, they should simply get off their fat asses and have it repealed? Easy as that? Put down that Budweiser and simply march to Washington and demand it be repealed?

Our Democratically elected leaders work for us right? They would listen......
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:28:52 PM EDT
Yeah, everything is so much better in Europe than here.



Not!!!
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:40:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So, if gun owners wanted to repeal the 86 MG ban, they should simply get off their fat asses and have it repealed? Easy as that? Put down that Budweiser and simply march to Washington and demand it be repealed?


Thanks for being obtuse. I am speaking about working within the system to setup a viable third party. Or would you prefer another single-issue party that is marginalized by the media and is one-and-done.

But to answer your ridiculously narrow hypothetical, yes, that is how things get done. Either literally marching on Washington or figuratively by flooding the phone lines of your representatives. Politicians count on the laziness of their constituents to keep them in power. Based on your dismissive and defeatist answer, your congressmen must LOVE you.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 4:27:01 PM EDT
Best way to have true representive government is to pick the name of your congressional representative from a hat. If you are drafted to the position then you have to serve. It's a friggin part time job. After you two year period is up, you go back home to live under the lawy you passed. All lower houses should be set up this way. No more gerrymandering or lobiest . No more party bosses telling them how to vote. We should go back to choosing senators the way it was done for a good portion of our history. They were appointed by the state legislatures and not elected. That way they haveto best interest of their state in mind and owe nothing to any party boss.

Having "professional" representives has not done any good for this country. We have the same problems today that we had 25 years ago. All the grandstanding and squabling has accomplished nothing.

The presidential election should stay the way it is. The electoral college is pure genious. If used properly, it could be potent force forpolitical change inthis country. I live in New York state. No republican will ever win the popular vote in this state. Voting for a republican in NY is like wasting your vote. Suppose you want to start a new political party. The Free Guns for Everybody Party. You go to the states where ther is a shoe in candidate and work the populace to gain as many of the wasted republican votes as possible. If you finish 2nd, it's news and your message gets out. You have not affected the current election, but you now have demonstrated that a large number of voters think the way you do. If they want to get you back, they are going to have to llisten to you. If not, you build on your momentum and use it to effect real change.

We currently have only a one party system in this country. It's the confiscate, tax and spend party and it has two sub divisions named Democrat and Republican.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 5:12:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So, if gun owners wanted to repeal the 86 MG ban, they should simply get off their fat asses and have it repealed? Easy as that? Put down that Budweiser and simply march to Washington and demand it be repealed?


Thanks for being obtuse. I am speaking about working within the system to setup a viable third party. Or would you prefer another single-issue party that is marginalized by the media and is one-and-done.

But to answer your ridiculously narrow hypothetical, yes, that is how things get done. Either literally marching on Washington or figuratively by flooding the phone lines of your representatives. Politicians count on the laziness of their constituents to keep them in power. Based on your dismissive and defeatist answer, your congressmen must LOVE you.



...or they hate me because I long ago stopped doe-eyedly believing in the divinity of the American system. You are correct; I firmly believe we are far past the point where we can vote our way out of our troubles. I am not a defeatist; I just know where not to cast my pearls... My hope lies in the future that will come after the fall, not in the hope of reviving the comatose Nation we have now.

I apologize for being obtuse with you.
Top Top