Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have red choice or blue choice. Which is the worse one? Both.
What's the problem here? It's that America still uses single member districts for electing representatives, meaning winner takes all. Winner takes all means that unless you vote red or blue, your vote is wasted (by and large). Third parties stand virtually no chance in winner takes all politics. The two party system is responsible for corruption in the US, because it allows both parties to get away with corruption because there is no competition from minority parties.
What we need is proportional representation, where each voter votes for a party, and then the % vote for each party determines the number of seats that party gets. So say Phil's party gets 10% of the vote in a state with 10 representatives, that means that Phil's party gets 1 seat.
How do voters decide who gets the seat if that party is elected? Primaries.
Yes, it's sad that whenever the US has helped establish new governments in other nations such as Germany or Japan or Iraq, we have set up a system of proportional representation. But in the US itself, we have stuck to a system that we already admit through our actions is flawed and broken. If it wasn't then we would set up governments that are like our own, but we don't.
In theory it sounds like it would work. Have 10 officials in the state, and each one would represent that number of voters.
However, they would be state wide representatives instead and not locality by locality representatives for federal progressive representation. 10 locations would not have a representative that represents their interests. It also allows fringe candidates into the mix. If 10% of the state thinks it's perfectly acceptable to gas anyone who isn't like them...they would have the representation.
A mixed system would be better, or a system that keeps out big money.
"So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."
"So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."
I don't think proportional representation was the only issue with the Weimar republic. Plus it's not a good comparision. A better one would be the US system to New Zealands.
In theory it sounds like it would work. Have 10 officials in the state, and each one would represent that number of voters.
However, they would be state wide representatives instead and not locality by locality representatives for federal progressive representation. 10 locations would not have a representative that represents their interests. It also allows fringe candidates into the mix. If 10% of the state thinks it's perfectly acceptable to gas anyone who isn't like them...they would have the representation.
A mixed system would be better, or a system that keeps out big money.
I think the representation for your local area is highly overrated. Anyways, senators can do that for your state, and the state congress can do it for your district. But allowing "fringe" parties like the libertarian or the green party would be better than have them finagle and pick red or blue. And even if one of these people is a wacko, it's only one and he/she can't do much. But it's about competition to eliminate some of the corruption because either a democrat or a republican is guaranteed (pretty much) the seat.
A mixed system like Germany's could work too.
I'm surprised there isn't more response here. Apparently it's always the other parties fault and we never look at the system that puts the party there.
If a state has three reps the (R) gets 45% the (D) gets 45% and the (I) gets 10%. How do you divide that up?
That's a very, very interesting mathematical problem. the available methods kinda break down for n=3. For n=100, you can get very close to a fair distribution. (And then you can get into debates about what "fair" means.)
That's a very, very interesting mathematical problem. the available methods kinda break down for n=3. For n=100, you can get very close to a fair distribution. (And then you can get into debates about what "fair" means.)
You can't come close to fair in my example. I think people are stupid in their blind following of the two parties but this idea doesn't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
