Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2014, 10:06:51 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  the only way to change america
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: the only way to change america  (Read 2640 times)
Colbert
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 360
France


View Profile
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:54:08 pm »
Ignore

would be to instaurate the two-round majoritarian system.


What do you think about that ?

Logged
Colbert
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 360
France


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2011, 06:54:42 pm »
Ignore

The actual system make impossible to a tier-party to merging
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2573


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2011, 07:30:41 pm »
Ignore

There are many electoral reforms we should adopt like:

1. IRV for single-member positions (Governor/Senators/President/Mayor/etc)
2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)
3. Abolishment of the electoral college
4. Automatic voter registration

but how are these going to pass?

The current two parties in our two-party system are not going to vote their power out of existence, there are no federal initiatives, and electoral reform on the state-level (whether the state legislature or state public initiatives) always seems to fail. The best improvements we've got in the last two decades has been what? Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 07:32:14 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2011, 01:27:40 am »
Ignore

2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)

Bicameralism is a good thing, so long as the second house is not elected in the same manner as the first.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2573


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2011, 01:42:51 am »
Ignore

2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)

Bicameralism is a good thing, so long as the second house is not elected in the same manner as the first.

Bicameralism is something you have in a federal system but the state governments are pretty much unitary. What are the state senates supposed to represent? Counties?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2011, 02:03:25 pm »
Ignore

2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)

Bicameralism is a good thing, so long as the second house is not elected in the same manner as the first.

Bicameralism is something you have in a federal system but the state governments are pretty much unitary. What are the state senates supposed to represent? Counties?

Before the 1960's that was indeed the case in a number of States, including South Carolina. (Indeed, in South Carolina, the combined delegation to the General Assembly from each county also did double duty as the county council for each county back before the one man-one vote cases made impossible keeping that useful means of keeping the number of elected offices small.)  While that is no longer the case, a second house that is elected on a different schedule than the first can serve as a check on momentary political blips.  Yes bicameralism can delay and impede political action, but that is more often than not a good thing.

While none of the States make use of it, another useful possibility would be to have one house elected from districts, and the other house elected on a Statewide proportional basis.  Indeed, for a federal government, I favor tricameralism, with in addition to two houses elected as just described, a third house with an equal number of members selected/elected by each State, but having legislative authority only on bills that affect the State governments.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2573


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2011, 02:20:40 pm »
Ignore

2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)

Bicameralism is a good thing, so long as the second house is not elected in the same manner as the first.

Bicameralism is something you have in a federal system but the state governments are pretty much unitary. What are the state senates supposed to represent? Counties?

Before the 1960's that was indeed the case in a number of States, including South Carolina. (Indeed, in South Carolina, the combined delegation to the General Assembly from each county also did double duty as the county council for each county back before the one man-one vote cases made impossible keeping that useful means of keeping the number of elected offices small.)  While that is no longer the case, a second house that is elected on a different schedule than the first can serve as a check on momentary political blips.  Yes bicameralism can delay and impede political action, but that is more often than not a good thing.

While none of the States make use of it, another useful possibility would be to have one house elected from districts, and the other house elected on a Statewide proportional basis.  Indeed, for a federal government, I favor tricameralism, with in addition to two houses elected as just described, a third house with an equal number of members selected/elected by each State, but having legislative authority only on bills that affect the State governments.

Yes that's quite elaborate but I just can't see any benefit to it. Any legislative bill, whether good or bad, should be dealt with through the legislative process: debate and amendment. I'm not convinced that we can only have a proper debate with bi-cameral state legislatures or that every county should get equal representation regardless of population like states and the U.S. Senate.

It's not like it's hard to consider how something will affect the counties and the legislators will obviously have an incentive to consider how any bill will affect the city/county governments in their districts. And as far as "political blips", I think the resulting unicameral legislatures should have elections every four years instead of every two.

But if the concern is that it should take more than one election cycle to change the composition of 100% of the legislature, well that's up for debate. I don't see the problem with it. Maybe it's a bit radical, but it's still a representative democracy and recall elections are always a possibility.
Logged
Colbert
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 360
France


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2011, 09:01:52 pm »
Ignore

In france, we had aloso bicameralism, and it"s a bullsh**t (for FRANCE, i mean), because the high assembly has NO real power. It just can make slow the votes of laws.

And it cost a lot !


greenforest, i have not very well understand (my english is quite awful Sad ) : oregon and washington have bring out the FPTP ?



The solution would maybe to concentrate all alternatives forces for electoral change on an only state (the more important, if possible) ?

what about the elections at county level ? Do you have a politician elected for each county or only for each municipality ?

If an against-FPTP win a county (or a municipality), maybe a domino process could be start
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2573


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2011, 09:59:16 pm »
Ignore

1. Oregon and Washington still use FPTP, just like every other state. The only thing is that both states conduct their elections 100% by mail so our turnout (as a percent of registered voters) is usually higher compared to the other states that still require people to vote in person

2. As far as the state senates go, they used to have representatives elected for each county/municipality rather than for equally populated districts, but we had a Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims) that ruled that as unconstitutionally violating "one person, one vote" so now all state upper chambers must have equally populated districts just like state lower chambers. So now every state (except Nebraska which is already unicameral) has two legislative chambers based on population. Tongue

3. County elections are usually candidate based rather than party based and they also use FPTP. I think there are a few counties in the country that use IRV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) instead of FPTP but it hasn't really led to a domino effect unfortunately.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 10:01:09 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2011, 04:01:58 am »
Ignore

Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?

In what way is vote-by-mail an improvement?
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Pope Kalwejt I of Northeast
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37345


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2011, 08:49:08 am »
Ignore

2. Proportional representation for all lower legislative chambers (along with the abolishment of every state senate)

Bicameralism is a good thing, so long as the second house is not elected in the same manner as the first.

I understand bicameralism on federal level, but on state level? I can't see much point.
Logged

greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2573


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2011, 02:17:12 pm »
Ignore

Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?

In what way is vote-by-mail an improvement?

It improves voter turnout, that's about it.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31176
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2011, 03:29:38 pm »
Ignore

A president elected by popular vote through IRV and a 600/700 members House of representatives elected through PR would help America a lot, indeed. Problem is, it's not happening anythime soon.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2011, 10:13:59 pm »
Ignore

Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?

In what way is vote-by-mail an improvement?

It improves voter turnout, that's about it.

But it eliminates the secret ballot at the same time.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2011, 10:21:58 pm »
Ignore

Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?

In what way is vote-by-mail an improvement?

It improves voter turnout, that's about it.

But it eliminates the secret ballot at the same time.

No more so than an absentee ballot.  My mom is old enough to qualify for one without having a reason, and it's not just one envelope, but two.  You put your ballot inside the inner envelope and then the inner into the outer.  So long as there are procedures in place to prevent the inner from being opened while the outer could be used, then the secret ballot is preserved.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2011, 02:02:49 am »
Ignore

Two states (Oregon, Washington) using vote-by-mail?

In what way is vote-by-mail an improvement?

It improves voter turnout, that's about it.

But it eliminates the secret ballot at the same time.

No more so than an absentee ballot.  My mom is old enough to qualify for one without having a reason, and it's not just one envelope, but two.  You put your ballot inside the inner envelope and then the inner into the outer.  So long as there are procedures in place to prevent the inner from being opened while the outer could be used, then the secret ballot is preserved.

Someone can look at your vote (or even mark it for you) before you put it in the envelope. The vote isn't secret.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Peter the Lefty
Peternerdman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3439
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2012, 08:16:30 pm »
Ignore

The best reforms for us to enact:
1. The abolishment of the electoral college. 
2. The institution of a two-round majoritarian system for presidential and gubernatorial elections. 
3. The abolishment of the Senate, and all State Senates/upper houses.
4. The replacement of the FPTP system in congressional and state lower house elections with an MMP system, with a 3% threshold. 
5. The creation of an Office of the Prime Minister of the United States, who is to be the head of the cabinet, and must be elected by the House of Representatives. 
6. The creation of an office of Deputy Prime Minister. 
6. The removal of all duties and powers of the President besides calling the House into session, dissolving it, and doing the work of a simple head of state.
Logged



-7.61 Economic
-7.48 Social
Governor Varavour
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10822


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2012, 09:21:50 pm »
Ignore

A plutocratic authoritarian oligarchical committee state. Nothing less.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines