The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Fixing the Broken US Political System: North Carolina forced to redistrict

joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
edited February 2016 in Debate and/or Discourse
With the government shutdown looming, it's time to sit down and have a little chat about some pretty infuriating aspects of our "voter representative" Republic. It boggles my mind that we are not only aware of some of the pretty glaring and obvious problems, we are not having a widespread discussion of them nor any attempt by elected officials to correct them.

I understand that the things that break our political system can sometimes work out in the favor of sane, rational people. I feel that in the long run, we all stand to benefit from bringing problems with our elections to light no matter which political party currently stands to gain from them. It is more important that representation be true, even if the represented district/state/whatever is truly batshit crazy. Call me an idealist, but I believe that truer representation would result in fewer crazy politicians overall.

So let's talk about some of the things that need to go the way of the dodo:

Gerrymandering

573px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png

Gerrymandering is what happens when a district map looks like a Rorschach test. "He who draws the district lines wins the election", to put it succinctly. The basic premise is twofold: packing and cracking. Most of the time these strategies are combined.

Packing is the act of sacrificing a district by giving up a single seat in order to win more. What would be a close race in a reasonably-drawn district can turn into a landslide for one side. But since we have a first past the post voting system, this overwhelming-majority-won district ensures that neighboring districts (emphasis on the plural s, here) are also comfortable victories: for the other party. If we suppose there are 5 districts, with one in the center, and we further assume that 70% of voters are party X while 30% are party Y, we might have (in a first-past-the-post election) 3 seats belonging to party X and 2 belonging to party Y. Note that this is still far not entirely representative; this brings the percentages to 60% party X reps and and 40% party Y, but this estimate is generously close to representation for current gerrymandering practices. Now suppose the lines are redrawn such that what were 65-35% or even 55-45% voting ratios across the board are now one very large and irregular district, won at 95%-5% of the vote, and the remaining four are won by roughly 60%-40% of the vote by the opposing party. This is packing: putting as many of the party which would normally win a majority of seats in one district as possible, and edging them out in the remainder.

Cracking is basically the opposite: take an intense X party area and divide it into other districts that you plan to win. The idea is to be careful to allow yourself a slight margin for victory, less than you would have otherwise, but still win the district overall. Again, this is the opposite practice of packing. Instead of letting an opponent party win a district through a concentrated voter population, you can make the races you are winning comfortably slightly less comfortable but still easily winnable by introducing just enough of these dense opposition areas. This is a little trickier and requires some good data to pull off, since putting too many opposition voters into your winnable district means you have actually lost it.

Of course, neither of these two gerrymandering strategies would be as effective without...

First Past the Post

Almost anything I can say to describe why this is a terrible way to run elections would pale in comparison to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Basically, watch that.

What other problems do we need to fix? How do we fix them?

Personally, I would prefer a mixed-member proportional representation system,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_678645&feature=iv&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=s7tWHJfhiyo&v=QT0I-sdoSXU

because the problems inherent to it are far preferable to what we currently have.

joshofalltrades on
«13456730

Posts

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Question: how many of these things you bring up would require a change to your constitution (ie, not gonna happen)?

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Yeah, I know it's pretty pie-in-the-sky, but the more dialog there is concerning the problems the more likely the next generations will be inclined to fix them.

    It would take very fast political action to make something like, say, MMPR the law of the land within our lifetimes. Like, dictatorship-level fast.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Is this only for national issues or can more local issues that are broken be brought up? The first thing that comes to mind for me are sheriffs and judges in many areas being elected positions when neither should be. Upholding and interpreting the law shouldn't be determined by popular opinion at any particular moment and people in those positions should be able to perform their duties without worrying about losing their position because of the derp masses not liking it.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Question: how many of these things you bring up would require a change to your constitution (ie, not gonna happen)?

    Gerrymandering can be solved without a Constitutional amendment, as can congressional FPTP (on a state-by-state basis.) MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Is this only for national issues or can more local issues that are broken be brought up? The first thing that comes to mind for me are sheriffs and judges in many areas being elected positions when neither should be. Upholding and interpreting the law shouldn't be determined by popular opinion at any particular moment and people in those positions should be able to perform their duties without worrying about losing their position because of the derp masses not liking it.

    I'm fine with the thread covering more local issues as well. We elect everybody in Texas and it ends up being ridiculous.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

    Can you elaborate on this? How could it be worse than FPTP?

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Question: how many of these things you bring up would require a change to your constitution (ie, not gonna happen)?

    Gerrymandering can be solved without a Constitutional amendment, as can congressional FPTP (on a state-by-state basis.) MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

    Even for fptp, the best I can see you getting is some minor parties that caucas with the bigger ones, possibly only existing in name only, because your government isn't really set up to have coalitions in congress

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    fptp has a unifying effect, and your country has proven that its localized political identities are quite enough to tear it apart without further encouragement

    aRkpc.gif
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    fptp has a unifying effect, and your country has proven that its localized political identities are quite enough to tear it apart without further encouragement

    You're saying that FPTP is necessary to prevent a future civil war?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Skeptoid has a pretty great podcast about electoral science - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4281

    The explanation of different voting systems in terms of vulnerability to spoiler effects and propensity for picking the Condorcet winner are most illuminating.

  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    Thread is not complete without link to the redistricting game: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/launchgame.php

    It makes the nuts and bolts of what is going on in gerrymandering incredibly easy to understand.

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

    Can you elaborate on this? How could it be worse than FPTP?

    I'm saying that there is exactly zero chance of us moving to an MMP system without an outright revolution.

  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Question: how many of these things you bring up would require a change to your constitution (ie, not gonna happen)?

    Ugh, this is why loathe most proposed laws that also change the Constitution (mostly on a state level); the goal isn't so much the law as it is to make something more permanent, that way if/when someone wants to change it down the road it's all "THEY WANT TO ALTER THE CONSTITUTION!".

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    fptp has a unifying effect, and your country has proven that its localized political identities are quite enough to tear it apart without further encouragement

    You're saying that FPTP is necessary to prevent a future civil war?

    I think he's saying that for all it's faults, the two-party system that arises from FPTP does a decent job of making sure the kind of bullshit going on in Congress right now that prevents the government from doing jack shit doesn't happen very often.

    I mean, I would love to be able to have more than two choices when casting a vote for a person or party whose ideals align with my own, and have a reasonable expectation of that person/party actually getting in office, but a lawmaking body made up of several groups of people with different ideas on how to do things isn't going to get much done. I guess you could say that is what voting blocs are for, but I don't see much differince between that sort of comprimise and the kind you end up getting when there are only two or three polical parties to begin with.

    steam_sig.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Skeptoid has a pretty great podcast about electoral science - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4281

    The explanation of different voting systems in terms of vulnerability to spoiler effects and propensity for picking the Condorcet winner are most illuminating.

    Unfortunately arrows theorem applies to preferences not necessarily to whether or not the system has enforced orders.

    When you allow ties in preference order the math doesn't change it just means that you may end up choosing someone with no preference.

    The two voting systems also fail theoretically because of essentially autility equivalence assumption(which is false). Whereas preference based voting does not have these pitfalls.

    That is to say if two people prefer x to y to z only mildly but person 3 prefers y or z to x very heavily then y or z can win. Even if person 3 prefers y or z to x only mildly by selecting heavy preference for y or z he can swing the election. Such it's not the case that being honest about your preferences is a dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is to select a single preference (which turns the voting into exactly fptp)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    fptp has a unifying effect, and your country has proven that its localized political identities are quite enough to tear it apart without further encouragement

    You're saying that FPTP is necessary to prevent a future civil war?

    I think he's saying that for all it's faults, the two-party system that arises from FPTP does a decent job of making sure the kind of bullshit going on in Congress right now that prevents the government from doing jack shit doesn't happen very often.

    I mean, I would love to be able to have more than two choices when casting a vote for a person or party whose ideals align with my own, and have a reasonable expectation of that person/party actually getting in office, but a lawmaking body made up of several groups of people with different ideas on how to do things isn't going to get much done. I guess you could say that is what voting blocs are for, but I don't see much differince between that sort of comprimise and the kind you end up getting when there are only two or three polical parties to begin with.

    Well, a vote for a Democrat could be a Union vote, a Progressive vote, or a Blue Dog vote. And the reps get to make up whatever they want for where their votes come from.

    In a Proportional representation system, the reps know exactly where their votes come from, and how many votes are available for that kind of thought, and how many votes they will be losing for going against something.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    @joshofalltrades

    ...Have you been following the political scene in, say, New Zealand or Australia? They use a proportional voting system.


    Guess what? The resulting governments are actually worse. I mean, at least FPtP marginalizes the crazies - they can vote Republican, sure, but they can't vote for Ron Paul's little party or Rick Santorum's little party because those are never things that will realistically exist in a FPtP system. MMP gives these crazies not only a voice, but the ability to adjust laws and direct the state's funds.

    "But Ender, surely this will be balanced out by the fact that other demographics will vote for more thoughtful and progressive candidate parties?"

    Nope, it won't, because the number of people actually interested in, say, LGBT equality or women's rights or science or environmental sustainability is so shockingly low that the figures boggle the mind.

    I see FPtP as a necessary safeguard.

    With Love and Courage
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    You have it fairly bass ackwards there. Sure Rick Santorum's little party might get enough votes for maybe even 15 seats out of 428, which means there is no way a coalition will kow-tow to them without risking losing their own bases, for no gain as the Rick Santorums already exist, so there is no reason to shift towards their voting pool.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    I would appreciate more elaboration on the common implication here that MMP somehow is comparatively less unifying than FPP.

    Also, the Ender, care to set out exactly why you think NZ's government is actually worse under MMP than it was under FPP? I don't believe that this point would be widely accepted in NZ, so am interested to see your thoughts

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    You have it fairly bass ackwards there. Sure Rick Santorum's little party might get enough votes for maybe even 15 seats out of 428, which means there is no way a coalition will kow-tow to them without risking losing their own bases, for no gain as the Rick Santorums already exist, so there is no reason to shift towards their voting pool.

    It also gets the crazies out of the main parties and into their own little huts, making the government as a whole trend towards centrism. The conservative party over here may be loathesome, but I'd take it any day of the week over the Republicans. Acting as if FPTP is any kind of safeguard for a certain set of policies is entirely absurd.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    The move to MMP from FPP in NZ was after a long campaign, that arose due to widespread dissatisfaction with FPP, which was delivering either main party strong majorities with mid thirties of vote share, at the expense of a succession of third parties.

    It has dealt with that problem and delivered stable government of coalitions over half a dozen terms and was easily returned in a referendum in 2011.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    The United States can change its form of representation. Hell I can think of no nation that hasn't done so at some point. So this whole 'never gonna happen' doesn't really fly with me.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    The United States can change its form of representation. Hell I can think of no nation that hasn't done so at some point. So this whole 'never gonna happen' doesn't really fly with me.

    In the long run, anything is possible. Also, we'll all be dead.

    I see no reason to not assume that the status quo will continue to stick up for itself, and the US system is excellent at protecting status quo interests.

    I would love to bet on this.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Speak for yourself I plan on living forever.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Proportional representation assumes a different idea of the nature of party than what we have at the moment. I doubt people will easily give up on the idea of actually voting for and electing an individual person, rather than a list.

  • wiltingwilting I had fun once and it was awful Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Seriously, the US has only two effective political parties, pretty much making it the least representative democracy in the world by that measure. So much that is wrong with US politics can be laid at the feet of the two party system, and ergo the electoral system. A proportional system would be ideal, but an alternative vote system is a somewhat attainable decent midway.

    First past the post is like the worst possible electoral system. The problem with electoral reform is that its never in the self interest of the parties/persons elected by the current system to change said system.

    wilting on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    I think the first thing that's wrong is the senate , the second thing is the house's gerrymandering qualities.

    "The problem" with American politics is that political victories aren't necessarily reasonably associated with legislative and economic outcomes, because political losers can retain enormous amounts of political power, and the Senate is problem #1 with that, and the gerrymandered house is #2.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Fptp also breeds voter apathy. Once a district swings +10 one way or another, the other side probably doesn't show up anymore. And even if the demographics and politics change, such a district may still be safe because apathy has sunk in.

    I remember a poll from the POTUS '12 election that showed that if every person in the US had to vote and could only choose D or R, Barack Obama would've won by about 60-40, the House would be D and the Senate would be filibuster proof D.

    The structure of voting laws in the USA also makes disenfranchment too easy at lower levels of government though. The fact that it takes 5 minutes to vote in Republican districts in Florida, and 5 hours in Miami, is pretty much criminal.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    You have it fairly bass ackwards there. Sure Rick Santorum's little party might get enough votes for maybe even 15 seats out of 428, which means there is no way a coalition will kow-tow to them without risking losing their own bases, for no gain as the Rick Santorums already exist, so there is no reason to shift towards their voting pool.

    Counterpoint: Israel. Small, radical parties such as Shas possess greater influence thanks to the kingmaker effect.

    Besides, if you really want third parties to have more influence, we have a system that works quite well in doing so - fusion voting.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Seriously, the US has only two effective political parties, pretty much making it the least representative democracy in the world by that measure. So much that is wrong with US politics can be laid at the feet of the two party system, and ergo the electoral system. A proportional system would be ideal, but an alternative vote system is a somewhat attainable decent midway.

    First past the post is like the worst possible electoral system. The problem with electoral reform is that its never in the self interest of the parties/persons elected by the current system to change said system.

    So, you're telling me that India is the most representative democracy in the world?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • wiltingwilting I had fun once and it was awful Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    wilting wrote: »
    Seriously, the US has only two effective political parties, pretty much making it the least representative democracy in the world by that measure.


    The sweet spot is about 3.5 effective parties. Effective number of parties is only one measure of how representative a democracy is, and a democracy is not only measured by how representative it is.

    Craptons of parties is super dumb, but so is two dominant all encompassing monstrous parties.

    wilting on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    wilting wrote: »
    The sweet spot is about 3.5 effective parties. Effective number of parties is only one measure of how representative a democracy is, and a democracy is not only measured by how representative it is.

    But two dominant all encompassing monstrous parties is super dumb.

    Why?

    Because from where I'm sitting, most countries have a two party split. Then there's a third junior party that exploits the kingmaker position to get power, even though it's usually significantly smaller than the two major parties. Finally, there are the dwarfs - the smaller parties that have no real functional power, but do manage to get a small handful of seats - Hedgie's First Rule of Politics says all that needs to be said about those parties.

    What bothers people is that in the US, influencing politics takes more than voting, moreso than in other countries. The parties are tents, and there's a lot of negotiating that goes on inside of them. And that's where changing positions happens.

    Edit: Considering that measure would define India as the Most Democratic Nation in the World, I'm inclined to just toss it out as being unreliable.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The Netherlands was a full defacto 3 party system post WW2 up until 1991, where a 4th party joined. Since then 3 more parties have been in government (7 different coalitions forming 7 governments since 1996). The trend is definitely towards more smaller parties.

    There are two problems I see:
    1) Opposition is easier from the extremes. It's easier to say something isn't rightwing or leftwing enough than to see 'your focuses in the center are wrong,' which over time erodes centralist parties and empowers both extremists and single issue parties. Geert Wilders PVV is currently the larging polling party in NL at around 16% of the vote, because the centralist governments budget cuts are very impopular.
    2) When the vote is fractured, coalitions get unstable. In the Netherlands, only 1 government since 1990 has reached the end of its term. 8 others have fallen beforehand (Though 2 fell more or less in symbolic ways, just before elections anyway, mostly as an indicator that the same coalition wouldn't happen again).

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • wiltingwilting I had fun once and it was awful Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Why?

    Is it just that you don't know anything else?

    Effective parties means parties that matter. Yes, it tends to be more than 2.5, and 2.5 isn't ideal, but it's a lot better than 2.

    1) A system that allows smaller parties more effectively marginalizes extremist voices that would otherwise remain within the larger parties. Said larger parties are thus more able to adopt centrist positions and work together.
    2) A system with a decent number of parties means parties are more used to working together and functioning in cases of divided government
    3) A system with more than two parties isn't subject to the same level of bitter partisan division; every party having things to like and dislike about the others
    4) A two party system doesn't remotely allow voters to make a choice representing their views other than the least worst option

    Seriously, the whole republican party hijacked by idiots and US government getting shut down things? Two party system.
    What bothers people is that in the US, influencing politics takes more than voting, moreso than in other countries. The parties are tents, and there's a lot of negotiating that goes on inside of them. And that's where changing positions happens.

    Exactly. With a larger number of parties to vote for and negotiating between parties voters choices actually matter.
    Edit: Considering that measure would define India as the Most Democratic Nation in the World, I'm inclined to just toss it out as being unreliable.

    You're taking this way too far, too few parties bad; too many parties (as SanderJK says) bad, ok?

    1) One (among others) measure of representativeness is number of parties
    2) Representativeness is not the only measure of a functioning democracy
    3) 'Most democratic' does not necessarily imply best functioning democracy

    Two few parties can be both unrepresentative (in this one particular sense ) and badly functioning, too many can be very representative and badly functioning.

    wilting on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Why?

    Is it just that you don't know anything else?

    Effective parties means parties that matter. Yes, it tends to be more than 2.5, and 2.5 isn't ideal, but it's a lot better than 2.

    1) A system that allows smaller parties more effectively marginalizes extremist voices that would otherwise remain within the larger parties. Said larger parties are thus more able to adopt centrist positions and work together.
    2) A system with a decent number of parties means parties are more used to working together and functioning in cases of divided government
    3) A system with more than two parties isn't subject to the same level of bitter partisan division, with every party having things to like and dislike about the others
    4) A two party system doesn't remotely allow voters to make a choice representing their views other than the least worst option

    Seriously, the whole republican party hijacked by idiots and US government getting shut down things? Two party system.

    1. Once again, Israel is the perfect counterpoint. Thanks to being able to take the kingmaker position, small radical parties like Shas play an oversized role in the political process there. The fact that extremist voices would move out to smaller parties would not marginalize them by any means. The US also falls under this on a technical level - we're actually a three party state if you get into the nitty-gritty, with the junior regional Southern faction moving between the two seniors to exploit the power balance.
    2. The counterpoint here is India. Exactly why is left as an exercise to the reader.
    3. See above.
    4. And this is really why these systems get pushed - because the idea is to make the voter feel empowered, even if in reality, doing so doesn't actually empower them. Once again, remember Hedgie's First Law of Politics: the goal of politics is not to get people elected - it is to get policy enacted.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    NZ is still in transition from FPP two party to MMP multiparty mode and it seems we are keeping two strong and large parties and may have a third medium sized party (Green). We have several small parties that fluctuate in size from one MP to about 7, but they are glorified Big Man parties who die easily. Neither of the historic main parties (which formed in the 1930s) has collapsed, or looks likely to do so.

    In any event, the two large parties get about 70-to 75 of the vote almost every election so it ends up a pretty stable system.

    Oddly enough, both major parties have refused to enter into coalition with the Greens so far. 2014 may force them to change this view

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    What bothers people is that in the US, influencing politics takes more than voting, moreso than in other countries. The parties are tents, and there's a lot of negotiating that goes on inside of them. And that's where changing positions happens.

    Yep. The thing is, Civics class doesn't teach people about the importance of party primaries and party discipline. So when it does matter, it strikes the people who lost as underhanded.
    poshniallo wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    fptp has a unifying effect, and your country has proven that its localized political identities are quite enough to tear it apart without further encouragement

    You're saying that FPTP is necessary to prevent a future civil war?

    Civil war? No, at least not initially. War is expensive, and unless you are prepared to perform ethnic cleansing and/or long-term military government - as the US federal government was quite prepared to do in 1865 - there's not much point confronting rebellious attitudes by force. All you can do is make concession after concession and hope that the relevant voters finally figure out that devolved powers don't automatically grant a competent government. You only get the terrorism-erupting-into-civil-war outcome if either side loses patience with the process of ever-greater concessions and start opening fire.

    What it does stoke is regionalism. FPTP enforces the pursuit of the national median voter, over the ideological spectrum of the entire relevant electoral group. PR does not.

    The whole appeal of PR is that it lets people who would prefer to vote Aryan Nations instead of Republican to do so without feeling that they have wasted their vote. But by the same token, it also lets people who would prefer to vote Southern Independence instead of Republican to do so without feeling that they have wasted their vote. Sadly, you cannot enable only the ideological splinter groups, not the territorially splinter groups as well. That's really it.

    Of course, this is not a concern in countries where national loyalty is so strong, that it can be taken for granted that it will trump all regional loyalties.

    aRkpc.gif
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

    Can you elaborate on this? How could it be worse than FPTP?

    because MMP requires accepting the legitimacy of non-geographic seats, which the US is not presently prepared to tolerate. There is still a perception, however wrong, that the federal government is a place that you send a deputy that you voted for, to represent your community. MMP requires accepting that you may win a majority of all geographic seats - say, the majority of the states - but still lose to a coalition of geographic and non-geographic seats de facto generated by the coastal states.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Kagera wrote: »
    The United States can change its form of representation. Hell I can think of no nation that hasn't done so at some point. So this whole 'never gonna happen' doesn't really fly with me.

    more likely, it will retain the present form of formal representation but disempower the relevant representatives through internal Congress reorganization

    this has changed multiple times in the past, and its current form only really dates to post-Watergate

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    MMP is not a realistic option for the United States.

    Can you elaborate on this? How could it be worse than FPTP?

    because MMP requires accepting the legitimacy of non-geographic seats, which the US is not presently prepared to tolerate. There is still a perception, however wrong, that the federal government is a place that you send a deputy that you voted for, to represent your community.


    That was and is a problem in NZ, where list MPs often have a lesser status. It would be hard for a list MP to become a serious leadership contender for either main party for that reason. That being said, people have largely accepted this as a concept and this after 130-40 years of the old FPP local rep model. So if NZ voters could accept it, I'm sure US voters could too.

    Regarding fracturing. Well there is an argument to be made that PR has the opposite effect, as it integrates these minorities into the system when otherwise they might not and therefore be more inclined to violence. Hell, we even have a Maori Party that arose during a period of great unrest, which successfully achieved some of their main goals before fading in importance as their voters return to other parties. Unlike Israel we do have a threshold of 5% to get in, which has meant no extremists seem to have made it past the gate.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
This discussion has been closed.