American political parties and primarys?

[RedImperator]

[/quote]And arguably the Democrats in the 1860 election, since they nominated two different candidates, which split the party and the vote. Took them a bit of time to recover from that one.[/quote]

If Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta in time for the election of 1864, they would have recovered within four years. George B. McClellan was very nearly elected president of the United States that year. If Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta in time for the election of 1864, you'd probably need a passport to cross the Mason-Dixon line. The only reason the Democrats went on to lose six (IIRC) straight presidential elections is because the Republicans won the war.

[Stuart Mackey]

If people know that a vote for a group like the greens is wasted, which it is under FPP, then they will vote for the mainstream party they think will best represent them.
They do this, not because they like to do it, but because they have no choice. If given the choice they would vote for the party that reflects their own point of veiw.

If people were really going to leave the parties in any substantial numbers they would have. No "third" party has gotten so much as five percent. The support simply isn't there under any circumstances.

snip rest answered below

How do you know? what you are saying is kike the old USSR saying there is no support for anything but the communist party.
If your major parties already encompass the political spectrum and there is no alternative people dont have the choice to vote for someone else!. How can there be support for anything if there is no option to get it into your congress?.

Do you somehow think that every one in your two parties has one veiw? does everyone in the US have either a republican or democrat veiw? of course not, they have shades of left oe right, shades of libetarian or green, and so on. Perhaps your nation has such poor voter turnout becuase people dont give a shit as there opinion is not met by either party?

As I said, people will vote for the party that best meets their political opinion, why should their vote count for nothing if cast for something other than the main parties?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

In short, proportional voting might stick a few radicals in Congress (libertarians from New Hampshire, maybe, and Greens from Washington State), but most politicians will chose to aggregate in two parties with broad ideaological bases, because that's the only type of organization capable of electing an American president.

I cannot remember having this argument before, could be wrong, but anyway..
What I am saying is that, your constitution aside, your electoral system and how your parties operate does not give proper representation of peoples veiws, let alone the ability to get legislation passed. . Proportional voting gives all political veiwpoints an equel oppertunity to be represented, this is not the case now.
As an example, if set up a party in the US and I get 15 percent of the national vote, but dont gain any seats, thats 15% of your people who have no representation of their political veiw after election day, despite voting. How can you judge your system of representaion as legitimate in such circumstnace when a full 15% of the vote has no representatives?

As to your president, he is elected by popular vote, is he not?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

What you can see is a system that in general balances out the fringes in the U.S. electorate and prevents them from being elected to positions of power. It demands moderation. Would you want Pat Buchanan or Lyndon LaRouche as president of the USA and in command of our nuclear arsenal? Fuck no.

Interms of your HofR and Senate, I dont know about your president,but with the other two New Zealand was the same as the US up untill a few years ago. We had a serious issue when the elected government had a majority in the house based on something like 40% of the vote. I am sure you can see the ligitimacy issue here.
What had happned is that people here became more politicised and were not prepared to have the 'moderation' of a two party system and when that happned parliment lost the electoral ligitimacy it requires to govern, hence we got a proportional system. We have no issues with fringe eliments as there is a threshold which determines parlimetry seats.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Interms of your HofR and Senate, I dont know about your president,but with the other two New Zealand was the same as the US up untill a few years ago. We had a serious issue when the elected government had a majority in the house based on something like 40% of the vote. I am sure you can see the ligitimacy issue here.

That would be impossible in our system.

[The Dark]

As to your president, he is elected by popular vote, is he not?

Not exactly. He's elected by the electoral college. When we vote, we are actually voting for our representative to the college, who will presumably vote for the candidate from the same party. This is not required by law in all states, however, and electors have been known to cut across party lines and vote for the opposite candidate. The electors are chosen like Representatives: by population, with a minimum of two per state. This actually gives a person in Wyoming something like seventeen times the representation of a Floridian, though. Of course, no system is perfect. Any government is merely a slowly deteriorating mass of red tape.

[Joe]

This is not required by law in all states, however, and electors have been known to cut across party lines and vote for the opposite candidate.

?

Unless I'm mistaken, this has happened no more than half a dozen times in U.S. history.

[The Dark]

This is not required by law in all states, however, and electors have been known to cut across party lines and vote for the opposite candidate.

?

Unless I'm mistaken, this has happened no more than half a dozen times in U.S. history.

But it has happened...I was just saying that it can happen, not that it's a common occurrence. I think it's happened three times in the 20th Century, though I'm not sure.

[Joe]

This is not required by law in all states, however, and electors have been known to cut across party lines and vote for the opposite candidate.

?

Unless I'm mistaken, this has happened no more than half a dozen times in U.S. history.

But it has happened...I was just saying that it can happen, not that it's a common occurrence. I think it's happened three times in the 20th Century, though I'm not sure.

Understood, but it certainly isn't enough of a problem to warrant any serious concern.

[Stuart Mackey]

Interms of your HofR and Senate, I dont know about your president,but with the other two New Zealand was the same as the US up untill a few years ago. We had a serious issue when the elected government had a majority in the house based on something like 40% of the vote. I am sure you can see the ligitimacy issue here.

That would be impossible in our system.

Of course it can be possible, all you need is a strong third party.

[Stuart Mackey]

As to your president, he is elected by popular vote, is he not?

Not exactly. He's elected by the electoral college. When we vote, we are actually voting for our representative to the college, who will presumably vote for the candidate from the same party. This is not required by law in all states, however, and electors have been known to cut across party lines and vote for the opposite candidate. The electors are chosen like Representatives: by population, with a minimum of two per state. This actually gives a person in Wyoming something like seventeen times the representation of a Floridian, though. Of course, no system is perfect. Any government is merely a slowly deteriorating mass of red tape.

Rediculous if you dont mind me saying so.
What you need is your parties to organise properly and evolve into a nice Westminster style of governmnet....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course it can be possible, all you need is a strong third party.

But it couldn't control the legislative process or pass votes through the House on its own. You need at least 50% +1 of the legislators in both houses to vote for a bill, and in the Senate usually more, as it works according to Parliamentary process. So a third party with 40% of the vote would in fact always need the support of one of the other parties with 29% of the vote to get any legislation passed in the House and the Senate, though of course both combined could totally dominate Congress. (Conversely the two traditional parties could still dominate the House and could perhaps have enough leverage to dominate the Senate, but probably wouldn't) - Though ideologically, probably would not.

Just to clarify from what you seem to be implying based on what you've been projecting on our system - you mean that your legislative process was actually set up so that a plurality could pass legislation? *winces* Now I understand why you were so eager to switch to proportional representation.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Rediculous if you dont mind me saying so.
What you need is your parties to organise properly and evolve into a nice Westminster style of governmnet....

Remember that we're a Federal Republic where our president has all the powers of the Head of State and the Head of Government. So naturally a system whereby the states as opposed to the people as a whole do the choosing in terms of the President - considering how vital the position is - is logical for us.

[Stuart Mackey]

Of course it can be possible, all you need is a strong third party.

But it couldn't control the legislative process or pass votes through the House on its own. You need at least 50% +1 of the legislators in both houses to vote for a bill, and in the Senate usually more, as it works according to Parliamentary process. So a third party with 40% of the vote would in fact always need the support of one of the other parties with 29% of the vote to get any legislation passed in the House and the Senate, though of course both combined could totally dominate Congress. (Conversely the two traditional parties could still dominate the House and could perhaps have enough leverage to dominate the Senate, but probably wouldn't) - Though ideologically, probably would not.

We found that a third party could have 6% of the seats and 15% of the vote under FPP. that aside, third parties tend to have a veto but not a choice as a rule, allthough they can initiate legislation it is totally dependent on the support of the main parties to become law.
Where one party is dependent on other, smaller parties, for legislative support the various parties must compromise on some issues.

Just to clarify from what you seem to be implying based on what you've been projecting on our system - you mean that your legislative process was actually set up so that a plurality could pass legislation? *winces* Now I understand why you were so eager to switch to proportional representation.

It is somewhat undemocratic to have affairs of state run by a party with 40% of the vote and 65% of the seats {depending on the election day results, naturally}. I should mention that our system as it was pre Propotional electing, was never intended to have more than two parties. Those parties were of course similar to the great English parties, Whig's and Tories. The Whigs being replced by Labour and the Tories have the formal name of National now. This system was, like the English system, pre democracy.

When a strong third party arose out of large dissatisfaction with the status quo, it unbalanced the system, which in fairness, was never desighned for a divirse populace with universal sufferage, with a variety of opinions. Thus unbalanced it brought into doubt its legitamacy.

I would suggest that at some point in the future your system could have the same difficulty. Should you have a third party that does not have seats propotional to its electoral support then you have a severe legitamacy issue.

[Stuart Mackey]

Rediculous if you dont mind me saying so.
What you need is your parties to organise properly and evolve into a nice Westminster style of governmnet....

Remember that we're a Federal Republic where our president has all the powers of the Head of State and the Head of Government. So naturally a system whereby the states as opposed to the people as a whole do the choosing in terms of the President - considering how vital the position is - is logical for us.

In our system the Monarch has similar powers to your President, but only in theory and only according to law . We have that great ideal known as the 'constitutional convention' which give us our democracy and sprang from the English civil war chopping of the royal head.
You too could have this system, given time, all you need is a stroppy HofR and a president with less than 51% of the eligible vote and apoulace that knows it .

[MKSheppard]

Why is it that people from British-style systems always want us Yanks to
change our political system?

I'm reminded of the time Rob Wilson said that the states should have
been reduced to mere administrative entities, with all legislative and
executive power given to Washington, DC

He got chewed up pretty good over that, though

[Stuart Mackey]

Why is it that people from British-style systems always want us Yanks to
change our political system?

We think its not as good as our system , just a relic of 17th century thinking...

I'm reminded of the time Rob Wilson said that the states should have
been reduced to mere administrative entities, with all legislative and
executive power given to Washington, DC

He got chewed up pretty good over that, though

from a purly theorectical point of veiw such a suggestion looks good but would be impractical to impliment because of your history. The Westminster system is unitary in its nature, becuase of the history of the English monarchy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We found that a third party could have 6% of the seats and 15% of the vote under FPP. that aside, third parties tend to have a veto but not a choice as a rule, allthough they can initiate legislation it is totally dependent on the support of the main parties to become law.
Where one party is dependent on other, smaller parties, for legislative support the various parties must compromise on some issues.

We already get compromise without giving radical ideas disproportionate influence, and thus a disproportionate size of the pie in any compromise agreement that is reached.

It is somewhat undemocratic to have affairs of state run by a party with 40% of the vote and 65% of the seats {depending on the election day results, naturally}. I should mention that our system as it was pre Propotional electing, was never intended to have more than two parties. Those parties were of course similar to the great English parties, Whig's and Tories. The Whigs being replced by Labour and the Tories have the formal name of National now. This system was, like the English system, pre democracy.

It's quite democratic really. And, seriously, you couldn't get 40% of the vote and 65% of the seats in the U.S. system, Stuart. You have to win 50%+1 of the elections to gain control of the House - Or 51 of the Senate elections (or 50 and the Presidency, as the Vice President can break a tie). Each district must be considered seperately (nevermind states for the Senate); decentralization is the key to the U.S. system and you can't live without it here, so to speak.

Even a possibility that may be theoretical could never exist in fact and you know it; even if it did it would still be a fair result, as it is the duty of congressmen to represent districts. The Westminster bias towards centralization, indeed, is very strong you - And leads you to project the unprojectable upon our system.

When a strong third party arose out of large dissatisfaction with the status quo, it unbalanced the system, which in fairness, was never desighned for a divirse populace with universal sufferage, with a variety of opinions. Thus unbalanced it brought into doubt its legitamacy.

Our system has already dealt with this and adapted to it.

I would suggest that at some point in the future your system could have the same difficulty. Should you have a third party that does not have seats propotional to its electoral support then you have a severe legitamacy issue.

It's happened before and one of the other two parties have collapsed or the third party has "fused" with one of the existing two parties. The system kept purring right along without a problem. It was very finely-tuned to begin with and we should indeed roll-back some of the more devisive changes that have been inflicted upon it in the past century or so, not embark on radical europeanization.

P.S. I should note that control of the houses of Congress in our system is NOT given to the party with the most seats, Stuart. I just want to make that clear. All offices in Congress are outlayed by a vote of the membership, which is exceedingly fair and reflects the fact that the USA was intended to function without political parties in the first place and did for a while.

For example:

http://www.speaker.gov/features/selection.asp

Selection of the Speaker

When the House of Representatives convenes at the beginning of a new Congress, its first order of business is to elect a Speaker. Because the House dissolves at the end of a Congress and must start anew at the beginning of each new Congress, the clerk of the House presides over the House under general parliamentary law until a Speaker is elected. For its first 50 years, the House elected the Speaker by ballot. In 1839, this method was changed to election by vive voce meaning that each Member names aloud whom he or she favors for Speaker. Tellers then record the result. In modern practice, each party places the name of a single Member in nomination for the position, but otherwise virtually the same vive voce method is used to elect the Speaker. Because the election of the Speaker typically takes place before the House adopts its rules of procedure, the election process is defined by precedent and practice rather than by any formal rule.

To be elected Speaker a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast, which may be less than a majority of the full membership of the House because of vacancies, absentees, or Members voting "present."3 Although the major parties nominate candidates for the position of Speaker, there is no limitation on whom Members may vote for.4 In fact, there is no requirement that the Speaker be a Member of the House.5 None of the other officers of the House is a Member.

If no candidate receives the requisite majority, the roll call is repeated until a Speaker is elected. Again, Members may continue to vote for any individual, and no restrictions, such as eliminating minority candidates or prohibiting new candidates from being named, are imposed. For example, at the beginning of the 34th Congress in 1855, 133 ballots over a period of two months were necessary to elect Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts as Speaker.6


The last occasion on which multiple ballots were required to elect a Speaker was in 1923. At the beginning of the 68th Congress, the nominees from both major parties initially failed to receive a majority of the votes because of votes cast for other candidates by Members from the Progressive Party and from the "progressive wing" of the Republican Party. After the Republican leadership agreed to accept a number of procedural reforms, the Progressives agreed to vote for the Republican candidate on the ninth ballot, making Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts the Speaker.7

If a Speaker dies or resigns during a Congress, the House immediately elects a new Speaker. Although it was an earlier practice of the House to elect a new Speaker under these conditions by adopting a resolution to that effect, the modern practice is to use the same practice as employed at the beginning of Congress. The most recent example of this occurred during 101st Congress when Thomas Foley of Washington was elected Speaker following the resignation of Jim Wright of Texas.8

In the 19th century, longevity of House service was not as important a criterion in selecting the Speaker as it is today. It was not unusual for a Member to be elected Speaker with only a few years service. From 1789-1899, the average length of House service before a Member was elected Speaker was 7.1 years. In fact, Henry Clay of Kentucky (in 1811) and William Pennington of New Jersey (in 1860) were each elected Speaker as freshmen (the first Speaker, Frederick A. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, was obviously third, albeit special, case).

The 18 Speakers elected between 1899-1999 served an average of 23.4 years in the House prior to their first election as Speaker. Sam Rayburn of Texas served longer as Speaker than any other Member: a tenure of 17 years (interrupted twice by Republican majorities). Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts holds the record for the longest continuous service as Speaker: 10 years. The record for the shortest tenure belongs to Theodore M. Pomeroy of New York who served one day. (Appendix 1 of this report lists all the Speakers of the House as well as their party affiliations, home state, and their dates of service in that office.)

[Stuart Mackey]

We already get compromise without giving radical ideas disproportionate influence, and thus a disproportionate size of the pie in any compromise agreement that is reached.

You have two parties, you dont get alternative legislation by defualt as there is nothing to compromise over.

It's quite democratic really. And, seriously, you couldn't get 40% of the vote and 65% of the seats in the U.S. system, Stuart. You have to win 50%+1 of the elections to gain control of the House - Or 51 of the Senate elections (or 50 and the Presidency, as the Vice President can break a tie). Each district must be considered seperately (nevermind states for the Senate); decentralization is the key to the U.S. system and you can't live without it here, so to speak.

Thats because you only have two political parties, as such its not possible for you to say it couldnt happen, you have never had the chance or dont want to.

Even a possibility that may be theoretical could never exist in fact and you know it; even if it did it would still be a fair result, as it is the duty of congressmen to represent districts. The Westminster bias towards centralization, indeed, is very strong you - And leads you to project the unprojectable upon our system.

Of course it can happen, it happned to NZ. And if you do get a third party with a substancial vote, like 20%, that does not gain seats, that voter block has no representation! and you call that fair !?!.

It can exist in fact, if people wish it to, that a group of people can put together a valid legislative programe and use it to gain votes at election time. When you effectivly deny representation to 20% or less or more, not deliberatly but via system that was not designed for it, then you lack legitimacy.

Our system has already dealt with this and adapted to it.

No, you just havent matured much politicaly as a nation.

I would suggest that at some point in the future your system could have the same difficulty. Should you have a third party that does not have seats propotional to its electoral support then you have a severe legitamacy issue.

It's happened before and one of the other two parties have collapsed or the third party has "fused" with one of the existing two parties. The system kept purring right along without a problem. It was very finely-tuned to begin with and we should indeed roll-back some of the more devisive changes that have been inflicted upon it in the past century or so, not embark on radical europeanization.

Please, I refer to it as it applies to the Westminster system.

P.S. I should note that control of the houses of Congress in our system is NOT given to the party with the most seats, Stuart. I just want to make that clear. All offices in Congress are outlayed by a vote of the membership, which is exceedingly fair and reflects the fact that the USA was intended to function without political parties in the first place and did for a while.

For example:

http://www.speaker.gov/features/selection.asp

And the party who has the most members and organisation determines the offices?. or does the minority get the choice?

[Frank_Scenario]

My question is about American parties,
1} being registered for either {why would you do that?}

2} and what the hell are primaries?

3} I trust none of the above has anything to do with voting on election day for any actual government position?

A few things about the original questions that have not been mentioned:

1. Some states allow only registered party members to vote in the primaries. This is to prevent, for example, a bunch of Democrats voting in the Republican primary (for example).

2. The primaries are only part of the presidential election. Each state has one for each party, and all of the candidates from a given party are on the ticket. The cadidate who wins the states gets the official nomination from the party, which qualifies them for a certain amount of federal funding. Those who lose are effectively out of the race; although they could run, they'd have no chance.

[paladin]

My question is about American parties,
1} being registered for either {why would you do that?}

2} and what the hell are primaries?

3} I trust none of the above has anything to do with voting on election day for any actual government position?

A few things about the original questions that have not been mentioned:

1. Some states allow only registered party members to vote in the primaries. This is to prevent, for example, a bunch of Democrats voting in the Republican primary (for example).

Already mentioned but your example does clarify information.

2. The primaries are only part of the presidential election. Each state has one for each party, and all of the candidates from a given party are on the ticket. The cadidate who wins the states gets the official nomination from the party, which qualifies them for a certain amount of federal funding. Those who lose are effectively out of the race; although they could run, they'd have no chance.

Incorrect. Some states have primaries to select candidates for governor and Congress if more then one candidate is seeking their party's nomination.

[RedImperator]

I cannot remember having this argument before, could be wrong, but anyway..
What I am saying is that, your constitution aside, your electoral system and how your parties operate does not give proper representation of peoples veiws, let alone the ability to get legislation passed. . Proportional voting gives all political veiwpoints an equel oppertunity to be represented, this is not the case now.

Again, I'll repeat what others have said: the parties themselves function as coalitions. It's important to remember that American parties are NOT like Westminster parties. Members are not bound to vote according to the wishes of the party leadership (the very idea of "party leadership" is very loose, especially for the party not currently in control of the White House). So two members of the same party in Congress can have very different views and vote differently, serving the same function as numerous small parties (unless you'd care to argue that a Vermont Republican, a California Republican, and an Alabama Republican are going to have the same views on every issue and will vote in lockstep). Only extreme frigne views aren't represented, a "problem" I shall deal shortly.

As an example, if set up a party in the US and I get 15 percent of the national vote, but dont gain any seats, thats 15% of your people who have no representation of their political veiw after election day, despite voting. How can you judge your system of representaion as legitimate in such circumstnace when a full 15% of the vote has no representatives?

If that 15% is scattered so thinly that they can't elect a single Congressional candidate, then they DON'T deserve representation because the American system does not recognize parties officially. Representatives are elected to represent Congressional districts, Senators to represent states. Rob Andrews, from the 1st New Jersey Congressional district (my home district) is a Democrat, but he wasn't elected to be a Democratic congressman per se. He was elected to be 1st NJ's representative to Congress. Under our system, it would be undemocratic to award your hypothetical third party 15% of the seats in the legislature because it would mean 15% of the districts would get saddled with a representative that got less than 50% of the vote.

As to your president, he is elected by popular vote, is he not?

It's complicated. There is a popular vote every four years, but that vote is divided up by state. A candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote in a state gets all that state's electoral votes. The number of electoral votes a state has is equal to the total number of representatives in both houses a state has--so however many Congressmen (one at minimum) plus two senators. This ranges from 54 in California to 3 in a number of states plus the District of Columbia (which has no voting representation in Congress but was given 3 electoral votes because it was embarassing that residents of the national capital couldn't vote for President). This system is essentially a way to give both the people and the states a voice in chosing the President. In the original Constitutional system, the House of Representatives represented the people and the Senate represented the states (until the 17th Amendment made the Senate popularly elected as well). The Electoral College system lets both chose the President. Without it, a candidate would only need 50% +1 vote in the nine most populous states to win a national election. While this is perfectly fair and democratic on the surface (because 50% +1 of the population voted for one candidate), it's unacceptable in a federal system because it basically gives 41 states no say in the election of the President.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, there are highly definable differences in American political parties down to the names, often on a state-to-state basis. For instance, in Minnesota the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL Party) is one of two main parties, challenging the Republican-Independent Party. Both, however, are members of, respectively, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee.

[Frank_Scenario]

Already mentioned but your example does clarify information.

Sorry. I skimmed the thread and didn't see anything, but I guess I just missed it.

2. The primaries are only part of the presidential election. Each state has one for each party, and all of the candidates from a given party are on the ticket. The cadidate who wins the states gets the official nomination from the party, which qualifies them for a certain amount of federal funding. Those who lose are effectively out of the race; although they could run, they'd have no chance.

Incorrect. Some states have primaries to select candidates for governor and Congress if more then one candidate is seeking their party's nomination.

My opening sentence wasn't clear; I meant that the primaries are a portion of the Presidential election, not that they only exist as part of said election, which is how it seems to have been interpreted. My apologies.

[Stuart Mackey]

I cannot remember having this argument before, could be wrong, but anyway..
What I am saying is that, your constitution aside, your electoral system and how your parties operate does not give proper representation of peoples veiws, let alone the ability to get legislation passed. . Proportional voting gives all political veiwpoints an equel oppertunity to be represented, this is not the case now.

Again, I'll repeat what others have said: the parties themselves function as coalitions. It's important to remember that American parties are NOT like Westminster parties. Members are not bound to vote according to the wishes of the party leadership (the very idea of "party leadership" is very loose, especially for the party not currently in control of the White House). So two members of the same party in Congress can have very different views and vote differently, serving the same function as numerous small parties (unless you'd care to argue that a Vermont Republican, a California Republican, and an Alabama Republican are going to have the same views on every issue and will vote in lockstep). Only extreme frigne views aren't represented, a "problem" I shall deal shortly.

Ok, I see how your parties are organised. But that does not explain how it is that a full {hypothetical} 15% of your population can be without representation, now does it?
No one person in a Westminster style party will have the exact same veiw on everything either, but they will share broadly similar veiws and vote accordingly, more organisation in our system but the overall effect is the same. Do you see what I am getting at with your party structure and how it effects your election system? birds of a feather etc. you have effectivly ruled out any effective third party option, because such attempts are scuppered by the electoral system itself.

As an example, if set up a party in the US and I get 15 percent of the national vote, but dont gain any seats, thats 15% of your people who have no representation of their political veiw after election day, despite voting. How can you judge your system of representaion as legitimate in such circumstnace when a full 15% of the vote has no representatives?

If that 15% is scattered so thinly that they can't elect a single Congressional candidate, then they DON'T deserve representation because the American system does not recognize parties officially. Representatives are elected to represent Congressional districts, Senators to represent states. Rob Andrews, from the 1st New Jersey Congressional district (my home district) is a Democrat, but he wasn't elected to be a Democratic congressman per se. He was elected to be 1st NJ's representative to Congress. Under our system, it would be undemocratic to award your hypothetical third party 15% of the seats in the legislature because it would mean 15% of the districts would get saddled with a representative that got less than 50% of the vote.

Ahh. now this is what I wish to deal with. So you would agree that a full {hypothetical} 15% of your populations veiws are irrelivant and not worthy of representation just because they do not all live in the one state?

If you were to have a proportional system this 15% would not represent any district they would represent 15% of your population.

As to your president, he is elected by popular vote, is he not?

It's complicated.

Ahh, ok, gotcha.