The United States should switch to a proportional system, prove me wrong
Other urls found in this thread:
news.gallup.com
twitter.com
We shouldn't have parties period.
>MAGA Party
cringe
the United States should give Trump full emergency powers
This, parties is an absolute garbage system
I couldn't think of another name
He'll just give more money to Israel
How do you expect to do elections?
I don't think the system would naturally gravitate from the party system simply because there would be no other way to funnel money to campaigns. Any other system would lead to an oligarchy. The bipartisan system is bullshit, though. It promotes an us-and-them mentality, and filters every ideal into two categories, even though most ideals on each side aren't 100% supported universally just because some dumbass labeled it "republican" or "democrat". It's easier to control the outcome of, and avoid damage from, an election if each direction is both beneficial and detrimental to those calling the shots. The mentality that states that a third-party vote is a wasted vote is gleefully promoted by the bipartisan system, and fools repeat it as fact because they're too stupid to realize they're pawns.
As far as I know neocons, that would result in a Green+Progressive+Democrat+Republican coalition government.
I still don't know how you would plan to create a no-party system and have everyone an independent.
That kid goning to grow up so fuck that he made become a hitler
I didn't. That's why I wrote what I wrote, and didn't write anything positive about having a no party system. Parties won't go away. The American political mentality would utterly reject a party-less system. It would confuse everyone like switching to the metric system. It's not that it'd be impossible, just impossible for the simpletons and those set in their ways to accept. There should be ten parties, not two.
Bump
>prove me wrong
Sweden
Seems to have been working
>The left has that many fucking seats
No thanks.
there are no federal guide lines for an election, this is a power granted to the states. so stop being a giant faggot, go get elected or pass a measure in your state.
All Anglo parliamentary systems are based on regional representation. One person is elected to represent a particular region.
Party Proportional system has to use larger regions, thus nullifying the idea of representation. It puts parties squarely in control.
So instead of having congressional districts, each state would have a number of representatives elected statewide. This gives big cities all the power.
Proportional systems are gay.
The left has that many supporters. Proportionally, conservatism is a minority movement.
Most people live their lives according to conservative principles. They are just too stupid to apply it to their voting.
It's really confusing how cowboys love Bolshevism all of a sudden.
Trump will be our Sulla. Cant wait for the proscriptions.
George Washington's parting advice was that the parties would jew us through divide and conquer. He was right.
True. He wanted a country where each politician stood for himself, not a party.
Each politician stood for himself when Lenin and Stalin ordered them shot.
only if you are a jew
There are more people who consider themselves conservative then liberal in the US. Most people honestly don't consider themselves either or are apolitical
Wild assertion. Provide sauce.
so that's what a British Kermit would sound like....
>There are more people who consider themselves conservative then liberal in the US.
Sauce. The voting doesn't reflect that. In fact, the popular vote is almost always majority liberal.
news.gallup.com
35% -26% and 35% consider themselves moderate
>He wants a system where no representative is directly accountable to their voters
Pretty sure he's an Aussie
They'd rather burn to death in misery than ever admit globalists are correct.
That's a bit disingenuous then. Those are people who consider themselves conservative, but in fact hold few if any "conservative" views and vote for democrats every election.
That's like a serial murderer who calls themselves "a good christian"
Sortition, pussy
I see more self-delusion here than anything else. What you consider yourself is nothing if your actions prove otherwise. I'd say this is more proof that Americans don't grasp these concepts well enough to even apply them to themselves.
Most people, including leftists, do not live by the policies promoted by leftist political parties. Isn't that obvious?
Do you see wealthy Jews handing out gibs from their own wallets to poor blacks?
That's because they don't want to be pegged as an extremist. The "moderate middle" never shows up in actual voting. I guarantee their actual views are not moderate.
My former boss claimed to be a moderate and claimed to hate contention in politics, yet behind closed doors he used words like kike and nigger.
>The two-party system does nothing but cause gridlock in Congress!
>If we create seventeen parties, that will solve the gridlock!
>other people's hypocrisy empowers me to be a hypocrite
>everyone is entitled to their own truth, facts don't exist
Bolshevism, prime cut and pure.
It's a proven concept. You don't get to pretend it's not.
Europeans have even worse political gridlock than America
>MAGA Party
more like MIGA Party
What are you talking about?
That's what you say now, but later you'll pretend the EU is either tyrannical or illegitimate.
You argue like a Bolshevik, meaning you lack arguments and try subvert the debate instead. The political method of a manchild.
That kid goning to grow up so fuck that he made become a hitler
maybe, but its guaranteed to arise, provided people have the freedom to create them. people are lazy and want a short-hand way to determine how a candidate views a wide range of issues
otherwise, when election time runs around they have to do in-depth research on: 3 candidates running for court clerk, 4 candidates running for magistrate judge, 2 candidates running for local prosecutor, 4 candidates running for sheriff, 3 candidates running for probate judge, 7 candidates running for city council/county commissioner, 2 candidates running for tax commissioner, 3 candidates running for coroner, 4 candidates running for state congress, 3 candidates running for state senator, 2 candidates running for US representatives, 3 candidates running for US senate, etc etc etc
the creation of political parties to alleviate that is unavoidable. even if you outright ban official parties, candidates will still form unofficial groups and advertise themselves under those banners. "vote for me, im liberal", "vote for me, im a nationalist", etc
what about these names?
Green Party
Progressive Party
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party
Republican Party
Freedom Party
National Party
he said proportional system, not parliamentary system
the president would still be trump
This. I still want our Republic intact and also want to remove the Seventeenth Amendment
To get more viable parties, you'd need to change your voting system. First-Past-The-Post basically guarantees two-party dominance, since "wasting your vote" is an actual problem with it.
Example: Let's say I'm a right-wing voter in Florida, who is very worried about gun laws. There is a third party candidate from the Libertarian Party who says he is very pro-2nd Amendment, who is closest to my views. But the two main candidates are the ones from the Democratic Party (whose candidate is pursuing an aggressively anti-gun agenda) and the Republican Party (whose candidate isn't actively going anti-gun, but has previously expressed openness to the ideas of some gun control advocates).
The race between the two is very close. If I vote for the Libertarian, I have no influence on which of the two major party candidates wins in the end, and the risk of a stringent anti-gunner in office increases. If I vote for the Republican, I betray my ideals to an extent, but I minimise the risk of the worst-case scenario.
It is choices like these which force the two-party system.
But let's say there's a way for me to vote with my heart without increasing worst-case scenario risk. Maine's idea of introducing ranked-choice voting is an exceptionally good step in that direction - you rank the candidates from different parties in order of preference, and the system basically functions as a series of instantaneous runoff elections. Even if your third-party candidate loses, big-party politicians can see the trends of preferencing after the election (which third-party's backers preferenced them ahead of the other big party), and can use that information to change their own stances and better capture a larger section of the primary vote.
I'm not talking about the EU's brand of insanity, I mean the EU's constituent members.
I don't want EU style government, just proportional system. I want the Seventeenth Amendment gone
The proportional system somehow manages to be worse than two-party. You think things are bad with leftists trying to hijack the Dem party now? In a proportional system they would be officially endowed with the power to block.
But there'd be no more backroom appeasement. The crazies on both sides would get swept away and we could settle with nice center-right and center-left policies. Pro-citizen pro-country stuff. Not dealing with Dems selling out to corporations and Republicans selling out to donors.
>The crazies on both sides would get swept away and we could settle with nice center-right and center-left policies
Never been observed in a proportional system.
this
proportional systems are actually great for small radical parties
But now the extreme left and right can have their own parties instead of being trapped in the two party system, thus making the Democrat and Republican parties centrist in nature.
It also means to win an election, the Dems and Reps would be obligated to make deals with those extremists. Progressives getting to play kingmaker on a structural level.
>>The two-party system does nothing but cause gridlock in Congress!
I don't see the issue here.
You're forgetting that in my scenario, the Senate is compromised of people chosen by the states instead of being voted on, meaning that the Senate would be a lot more conscience in their decisions and probably reject a lot that would come from a radical House.
>I don't see the issue here.
Nothing gets done about immigration because of this and their only form of compromise is just flooding us with more. Gridlock is bad.
How do you possibly come to that conclusion with that system?
Because the Senate has to take into consideration that they're there for the benefit of their state and that if they do something unpopular, the governor can just remove them and replace them.
So what happens when you get a bunch of progressive governors appointing far-left Senators?
>Nothing gets done about immigration
Trump just needs to quit being a pussy and enforce the existing laws.
Well first the state senate has to approve of those appointments but if that's the case then there will definitely be states that have right-wing Senators.
That quote's super out of context.
Ok
So, walk with me here through the thought process. How does that make Dems and Reps more centrist in nature?
Because there is a clear split in both parties and given the opportunity those extremes would break apart which would make the Republican and Democrat party more centrist because those parties are centrist in nature since they have so much in common
Your politicians do not give a shit about your values. It's just lip service. Their job is to make laws that favor donors and you pay the price. They worship the rich and crush the poor.
>which would make the Republican and Democrat party more centrist because those parties are centrist in nature since they have so much in common
This has never been observed to occur in a proportional system. The Dems and GOP would simply disband into their constituencies who create their own parties.
I don't see the issue.
All proportional systems have two large parties and smaller parties that are based off the big ones. Every country has two main parties.
see the netherlands, sweden, etc
also you`re comparing your system with parliamentary systems, not to a presidential system with an electoral college
your system is more akin to those in latin america than those in europe, being taht these are actually multiparty presidential systems, but with the addition of the electoral college you change everything and makes the system very similar to what you have now
We should find our own system I think. Our government takes a variety of things from a variety of systems, there's no one size fits all for us.
bump
Bump
No
Yes
...