How to achieve some political sanity in the Disunited States

[Captain Kruger]

Let's face it, the Republicans and Democrats have a lock on American politics. All of the other parties - Constitutionists, Libertarians, Greens, Reformists, etc. - have about as much chance of achieving real political power as a snowman has of surviving 30 minutes in the Sahara in the middle of July.

So, with that said, believe it or not, the incredibly divided status we have as a nation these days might actually be a good thing. Let the Left keep leaning to the extreme left and the Right to the extreme right. Let's have more and more tree hugging, welfare state sanctioning, anti-gun right hippies and Bible-thumping Osama bin Falwell type holy roller psychopaths make their mark on American politics.

What will happen then? The only thing that can possibly bring about a change: moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will realize that they have more in common with each other than with the brainless extremist dipshits of their own parties. They can get together and form a third party that will automatically have the combined political clout and muscle they've built up during their careers.

Who likes the idea?

[RedImperator]

Not going to happen. I could see the Republican party splitting and its moderate wing bolting to the Democrats under certain circumstances, but not the moderate wings of both parties combining to form a third party.

It's worth remembering that if history is any guide, this is just a temporary swing in one direction. Conservatives in the late 70's were hopelessly certain that the United States was on a headlong dash into European style democratic socialism, along with a huge, centralized Federal government that completely overshadowed the states. That didn't happen because 1) the big government policies of the Democrats were obviously flawed, and 2) the electorate didn't want to go that far to the left. The Republicans are going to be on the recieving end of what they gave the Democrats in 1980 by 2008 or 2012. If I had to tell you who was going to give it, I'd say keep an eye on the junior senator from Illinois.

[Stuart Mackey]

Wont work. The reason being is that the USA's electoral system and overall governmental system does not allow for third parties to exist and acheive anything worthwhile.
To do as you suggest would require that legislative seats be proportional elected.
If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

[RedImperator]

If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

Executive power is granted by the people through the Constitution. As long as a candidate meets the requirements set forth in that document, he has the right to executive authority. I don't see how proportional representation calls that into question.

[Stuart Mackey]

If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

Executive power is granted by the people through the Constitution. As long as a candidate meets the requirements set forth in that document, he has the right to executive authority. I don't see how proportional representation calls that into question.

If your legislature is proportionally elected, ie it is a reasonably accurate representation of political and voter opinion on election day, how can a president with, say 40% of the vote, claim ligitimacy? That is the risk that you take when you introduce proportional voting. Thier is, I think, a difference between legal ligitimacy and moral legitimacy and sooner or later that moral ligitimacy will become the legal ligitimacy in a democracy.

[RedImperator]

If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

Executive power is granted by the people through the Constitution. As long as a candidate meets the requirements set forth in that document, he has the right to executive authority. I don't see how proportional representation calls that into question.

If your legislature is proportionally elected, ie it is a reasonably accurate representation of political and voter opinion on election day, how can a president with, say 40% of the vote, claim ligitimacy? That is the risk that you take when you introduce proportional voting. Thier is, I think, a difference between legal ligitimacy and moral legitimacy and sooner or later that moral ligitimacy will become the legal ligitimacy in a democracy.

That's something of a nonsensical dilemma, because even though we've elected presidents with mere pluralities before, they've always been large pluralities, ~48% or so. And the Electoral College makes the whole thing somewhat moot because you need a majority there to win, and no candidate has failed to recieve one since 1886.

At any rate, I'm still not seeing how a proportional legislature would make people not recognize a president elected with a plurality. You can't divide the executive to accurately represent the people's views like you can the House of Representatives. Clinton won with a plurality in 1996 and his legitimacy wasn't questioned despite the fact the Republicans has a majorit in Congress (which ought to have reflected a somewhat conservative mood on the part of the electorate).

[Stuart Mackey]

That's something of a nonsensical dilemma, because even though we've elected presidents with mere pluralities before, they've always been large pluralities, ~48% or so. And the Electoral College makes the whole thing somewhat moot because you need a majority there to win, and no candidate has failed to recieve one since 1886.

Well you have just proven that Presidents with less than 50% of the vote dont have legitimacy and compounded that with, that such presidents must rely on the electoral college to support them

At any rate, I'm still not seeing how a proportional legislature would make people not recognize a president elected with a plurality. You can't divide the executive to accurately represent the people's views like you can the House of Representatives. Clinton won with a plurality in 1996 and his legitimacy wasn't questioned despite the fact the Republicans has a majorit in Congress (which ought to have reflected a somewhat conservative mood on the part of the electorate).

You are correct, you cannot divide an executive, such as that of the US, along proportional lines. However How long do you think it will be before people do start questioning a Presidency's ligitimacy, when ligitimacy caused the legislature to be voted in proportionally?
Of cource it's academic , as I dont think the US is about to change its constitition to allow reflection of voter opinion anytime soon

[RedImperator]

That's something of a nonsensical dilemma, because even though we've elected presidents with mere pluralities before, they've always been large pluralities, ~48% or so. And the Electoral College makes the whole thing somewhat moot because you need a majority there to win, and no candidate has failed to recieve one since 1886.

Well you have just proven that Presidents with less than 50% of the vote dont have legitimacy and compounded that with, that such presidents must rely on the electoral college to support them

How did I prove anything of the kind? Nobody questioned Clinton's legitimacy despite the fact he never won a majority. Bush's legitimacy was questioned on the grounds that 1) he lost the popular vote and 2) SCOTUS's ruling in Bush v. Gore was questionable, not because he only won a plurality.

And the electoral college helps confer legitimacy because it settles the matter legally and usually unambiguously. It's not a crutch except in rare cases like with Bush in 2000.

At any rate, I'm still not seeing how a proportional legislature would make people not recognize a president elected with a plurality. You can't divide the executive to accurately represent the people's views like you can the House of Representatives. Clinton won with a plurality in 1996 and his legitimacy wasn't questioned despite the fact the Republicans has a majorit in Congress (which ought to have reflected a somewhat conservative mood on the part of the electorate).

You are correct, you cannot divide an executive, such as that of the US, along proportional lines. However How long do you think it will be before people do start questioning a Presidency's ligitimacy, when ligitimacy caused the legislature to be voted in proportionally?[/quote]

When Hell freezes over. We've had a President for 214 years; Americans are reluctant enough to tweak the structure of the government (only two major changes since 1789), and what you're suggesting is that people would divide or eliminate the office that was held by Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. The Presidency is the center of the American political universe and the President as the leader of the United States is thoroughly burned into the American psyche. It will be the last office to go, not the first.

[Stuart Mackey]

That's something of a nonsensical dilemma, because even though we've elected presidents with mere pluralities before, they've always been large pluralities, ~48% or so. And the Electoral College makes the whole thing somewhat moot because you need a majority there to win, and no candidate has failed to recieve one since 1886.

Well you have just proven that Presidents with less than 50% of the vote dont have legitimacy and compounded that with, that such presidents must rely on the electoral college to support them

How did I prove anything of the kind? Nobody questioned Clinton's legitimacy despite the fact he never won a majority. Bush's legitimacy was questioned on the grounds that 1) he lost the popular vote and 2) SCOTUS's ruling in Bush v. Gore was questionable, not because he only won a plurality.

And the electoral college helps confer legitimacy because it settles the matter legally and usually unambiguously. It's not a crutch except in rare cases like with Bush in 2000.

How can you have legitimacy when a majority do not vote for youI dont know how much simpler I can make this, but if you dont have a majority in a democracy then you dont have legitimacy. Hving an electoral college reinforce this does not confer legitimacy on something has no legitimacy in the first place.

You are correct, you cannot divide an executive, such as that of the US, along proportional lines. However How long do you think it will be before people do start questioning a Presidency's ligitimacy, when ligitimacy caused the legislature to be voted in proportionally?

When Hell freezes over. We've had a President for 214 years; Americans are reluctant enough to tweak the structure of the government (only two major changes since 1789), and what you're suggesting is that people would divide or eliminate the office that was held by Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. The Presidency is the center of the American political universe and the President as the leader of the United States is thoroughly burned into the American psyche. It will be the last office to go, not the first.[/quote]

I did not mention anything about abolishing the precidency, so kindly dont put words in my mouth. Britains nations have had a Monarch/s for a thousand years, yet no one to day would suggest that the monarch have executive power even though the constitution allows for it. The monarch is not elected and as such does not have any legitimate right to executive authority in a democracy.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip.

crap, sorry about the poor quote editing above.

[RedImperator]

How can you have legitimacy when a majority do not vote for youI dont know how much simpler I can make this, but if you dont have a majority in a democracy then you dont have legitimacy. Hving an electoral college reinforce this does not confer legitimacy on something has no legitimacy in the first place.

You'll kindly point out where in political theory it states executive legitimacy comes from having a mathmatical majority of the votes, rather than legal recognition and the acceptance of the population at large. By that logic, the United States hasn't had a legitimate chief executive since 1992. That's plainly nonsense.

When Hell freezes over. We've had a President for 214 years; Americans are reluctant enough to tweak the structure of the government (only two major changes since 1789), and what you're suggesting is that people would divide or eliminate the office that was held by Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. The Presidency is the center of the American political universe and the President as the leader of the United States is thoroughly burned into the American psyche. It will be the last office to go, not the first.

I did not mention anything about abolishing the precidency, so kindly dont put words in my mouth. Britains nations have had a Monarch/s for a thousand years, yet no one to day would suggest that the monarch have executive power even though the constitution allows for it. The monarch is not elected and as such does not have any legitimate right to executive authority in a democracy.

See that bolded word? That's what adopting a Parliamentary system would do, unless you're suggesting something OTHER than creating an analogue to a Prime Minister and reducing the President to the Head of State with reduced or eliminated executive power. If you are, please tell me, because I can't begin to imagine what you might otherwise have in mind.

And none of that addresses the main point of that paragraph, which was that Americans are very conservative when it comes to the structure of their government, and simply won't make such a major change to it. There have been occasional movements to create a Prime Minister or somesuch office, and attempts by the Congress to reduce the President to a figurehead; they've all failed miserably.

[Stuart Mackey]

How can you have legitimacy when a majority do not vote for youI dont know how much simpler I can make this, but if you dont have a majority in a democracy then you dont have legitimacy. Hving an electoral college reinforce this does not confer legitimacy on something has no legitimacy in the first place.

You'll kindly point out where in political theory it states executive legitimacy comes from having a mathmatical majority of the votes, rather than legal recognition and the acceptance of the population at large. By that logic, the United States hasn't had a legitimate chief executive since 1992. That's plainly nonsense.

Democratic political theory. If the US wishes to confer legitimacy to a President that is not elected with a majority of votes the its questionable if the US can call itself democratic.

See that bolded word? That's what adopting a Parliamentary system would do, unless you're suggesting something OTHER than creating an analogue to a Prime Minister and reducing the President to the Head of State with reduced or eliminated executive power. If you are, please tell me, because I can't begin to imagine what you might otherwise have in mind.

A parlimentry system does not divide the excutive, never has. What it does is have the executive in a different place. To your point on the use of the word 'divide' , I never said anything about dividing it, quite the opposite,

You are correct, you cannot divide an executive, such as that of the US, along proportional lines.

{see above} I am talking about the electoral legitimacy of the president.

And none of that addresses the main point of that paragraph, which was that Americans are very conservative when it comes to the structure of their government, and simply won't make such a major change to it. There have been occasional movements to create a Prime Minister or somesuch office, and attempts by the Congress to reduce the President to a figurehead; they've all failed miserably.

Is that public convervatism? or the sytems inherent checks and balances? I cant really comment on that as I am not familiar with any such attempts.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip.

Hey, Red, are you having issues with the quote tags? I cannot seem to make them work for some reason.

[RedImperator]

Democratic political theory. If the US wishes to confer legitimacy to a President that is not elected with a majority of votes the its questionable if the US can call itself democratic.

As this is a republic, I'm not concerned either way.

A parlimentry system does not divide the excutive, never has. What it does is have the executive in a different place. To your point on the use of the word 'divide' , I never said anything about dividing it, quite the opposite,

Semantics. It's shifting power away from the head of state no matter what you call it.

{see above} I am talking about the electoral legitimacy of the president.

Which somehow you are empowered to determine, and not the 300 million people who live here. Legitimacy comes from the governed, not strict adherence to one particular political theory.

Is that public convervatism? or the sytems inherent checks and balances? I cant really comment on that as I am not familiar with any such attempts.

Either they went nowhere because there was little public support or there was a public backlash (see the impeachment of Clinton for a good example of this). The system is designed to resist change, it's true, but there was never enough momentum to change even a more pliable system.

EDIT: No problems with my quote tags, though for simplicity I've been deleting all but the quote immediately prior to my response.

[Stuart Mackey]

As this is a republic, I'm not concerned either way.

A Republic based on democratic principles. After all, you can still have a republic and not have the vote universal

Semantics. It's shifting power away from the head of state no matter what you call it.

Strawman. I never once mentioned that. I have been referring to electoral legitimacy.

Which somehow you are empowered to determine, and not the 300 million people who live here. Legitimacy comes from the governed, not strict adherence to one particular political theory.

Aherm? Then what was all that kerfuffel in 2000? I will repeat it again, how can you have legitimacy if a majority do not vote for you?

Either they went nowhere because there was little public support or there was a public backlash (see the impeachment of Clinton for a good example of this). The system is designed to resist change, it's true, but there was never enough momentum to change even a more pliable system.

Well, momentum is what count on such an issue.

EDIT: No problems with my quote tags, though for simplicity I've been deleting all but the quote immediately prior to my response.

Seems to be working now..*shrugs*

[Prozac the Robert]

Wont work. The reason being is that the USA's electoral system and overall governmental system does not allow for third parties to exist and acheive anything worthwhile.
To do as you suggest would require that legislative seats be proportional elected.
If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

What exactly has PR got to do with the presidents share of the vote?

Your problem seems to be with succesful third parties in general rather than PR. Besides, if it bothers you that much you could have a second vote between the two most popular presidential candidates. That way the winner has to have over 50% of the final vote.

[RedImperator]

A Republic based on democratic principles. After all, you can still have a republic and not have the vote universal

I'm still waiting for the part where you prove democratic principles automatically disqualify the chief executive from legitimacy if he merely achieves a plurality, so long as he can legally take the office and the people accept the outcome of the election.

Strawman. I never once mentioned that. I have been referring to electoral legitimacy.

Then what, exactly, are you suggesting to ensure legitimacy, according to the rules that you've made up.

Aherm? Then what was all that kerfuffel in 2000? I will repeat it again, how can you have legitimacy if a majority do not vote for you?

Did you not read the part where I explained exactly why Bush had questions about his legitimacy after 2000? I'll quote myself because I don't feel like retyping it:

Bush's legitimacy was questioned on the grounds that 1) he lost the popular vote and 2) SCOTUS's ruling in Bush v. Gore was questionable, not because he only won a plurality.

Now that that's out of the way, are you going to address the matter of Clinton not winning a majority of the popular vote either time and yet not having his legitimacy contested, or are you going to seriously sit here and claim that Clinton wasn't the legitimate chief executive of the United States?

Well, momentum is what count on such an issue.

That's pefectly true. Getting back to your original assertion, I don't see yet how proportional elections in the House of Representatives would generate that momentum.

[SPOOFE]

A Republic based on democratic principles.

It's a representative democracy. That's why we don't have a national vote every time a piece of legislation goes through Congress... because we elect other people to make the decisions for us.

You're too Presidentially-centric... the Congress is the most important governing body in our country, not the Presidency. Ever notice how nothing happens without consent of the House and Senate?

You're really not demonstrating a glowing knowledge of our system, buddy. This quote from the OP proves it:

Let the Left keep leaning to the extreme left and the Right to the extreme right.

If you'd kept your eyes open for, oh, the past two hundred years, you'd know that the political Centrists are the group that both parties fight over most of the time.

[Darth Wong]

The Left in America is not extreme left, but the Right is extreme right. What Americans call "centrists" are people who would be considered conservatives in most first-world countries. As for national unity, it is 100% the right's fault. Sorry to oppose the common "golden mean" thinking endemic to political discussions, but only one side routinely accuses the other of being "anti-American" and even "treasonous", and that's the right.

When you keep using nationalism as a blunt instrument to beat your political opponent over the head, it's pretty hard to turn around and say that you're trying to promote national unity. Not unless you mean what Spock referred to as the unity of "a team of dogs under one whip".

[Stuart Mackey]

Wont work. The reason being is that the USA's electoral system and overall governmental system does not allow for third parties to exist and acheive anything worthwhile.
To do as you suggest would require that legislative seats be proportional elected.
If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

What exactly has PR got to do with the presidents share of the vote?

Dont you think its a tad wrong that the guy who runs the nation does not have a majority of votes on election day?

Your problem seems to be with succesful third parties in general rather than PR.

What the hell are you talking about?

Besides, if it bothers you that much you could have a second vote between the two most popular presidential candidates. That way the winner has to have over 50% of the final vote.

Fair enough.

[Stuart Mackey]

A Republic based on democratic principles. After all, you can still have a republic and not have the vote universal

I'm still waiting for the part where you prove democratic principles automatically disqualify the chief executive from legitimacy if he merely achieves a plurality, so long as he can legally take the office and the people accept the outcome of the election.

And I would love to see you justify having a nation run by a man who whom the majority did not vote for. Fuck the legalities of the matter, It was legal once to own slave in the USA, but that never made it right but it was still accepted as legitimate at the time.

Then what, exactly, are you suggesting to ensure legitimacy, according to the rules that you've made up.

Aint up to me, Robert he Prozac suggested a run off between the most popular..in effect two presidential elections. Unless you wanted to move to a parlimentry system *shrugs* But once again, I am not talking about that, just legitimacy.

Did you not read the part where I explained exactly why Bush had questions about his legitimacy after 2000? I'll quote myself because I don't feel like retyping it:

Bush's legitimacy was questioned on the grounds that 1) he lost the popular vote and 2) SCOTUS's ruling in Bush v. Gore was questionable, not because he only won a plurality.

Now that that's out of the way, are you going to address the matter of Clinton not winning a majority of the popular vote either time and yet not having his legitimacy contested, or are you going to seriously sit here and claim that Clinton wasn't the legitimate chief executive of the United States?

I never once claimed anything of the sort, your putting words in my mouth again, and I do not appreciate it. If he did not have a majority of votes cast on election day...............

That's pefectly true. Getting back to your original assertion, I don't see yet how proportional elections in the House of Representatives would generate that momentum.

Because people might wake up and realise that one should only hold power if you have an actual majority of the votes? Not hard to understand really.

[The Dark]

Wont work. The reason being is that the USA's electoral system and overall governmental system does not allow for third parties to exist and acheive anything worthwhile.
To do as you suggest would require that legislative seats be proportional elected.
If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

What exactly has PR got to do with the presidents share of the vote?

Dont you think its a tad wrong that the guy who runs the nation does not have a majority of votes on election day?

Not in the least. Most often, he does have a plurality. To use an anecdote (I know, they're usually bad, but this one is applicable), we had to rewrite our college Student Government's Constitution to alter the voting system. The problem arose when we had seven candidates for three Senator positions. Each student in the academic division could vote for the three they wanted, and the Constitution stated that a Senator must have a majority vote.
Nobody got voted on by more than 50% of the division; thus we had to have a run-off of the five highest-rated candidates, with each person voting for two (they had to vote for "less than half" of the candidates).
Nobody got more than 50% again.
We said "fuck it" and rewrote the Constitution to allow for the three candidates with the highest pluralities to be elected.
What does this have to do with the US election? Well, when there are eight candidates for one position (as in Florida for the Presidential election), to require one candidate to recieve over half the vote is not a realistic expectation, in my opinion. To recieve 30% could mean a large margin of victory, if the other seven each get about 10% of the vote. Requiring a majority is not a good idea, especially if we do end up getting third party candidates with real drawing power, like Perot used to have.

[Stuart Mackey]

A Republic based on democratic principles.

It's a representative democracy. That's why we don't have a national vote every time a piece of legislation goes through Congress... because we elect other people to make the decisions for us.

You're too Presidentially-centric... the Congress is the most important governing body in our country, not the Presidency. Ever notice how nothing happens without consent of the House and Senate?

You're really not demonstrating a glowing knowledge of our system, buddy. This quote from the OP proves it:

Let the Left keep leaning to the extreme left and the Right to the extreme right.

If you'd kept your eyes open for, oh, the past two hundred years, you'd know that the political Centrists are the group that both parties fight over most of the time.

Ohh, nice strawman, and if you had kept your eyes open for the post that you quote of mine, you would realise that I am talking about electoral ligitimacy

[Beowulf]

Wont work. The reason being is that the USA's electoral system and overall governmental system does not allow for third parties to exist and acheive anything worthwhile.
To do as you suggest would require that legislative seats be proportional elected.
If you introduce that, imo, it calls into question the legitiamacy of a President who has less than 50% of the votes cast on election day. What right to executive authority a person who wa not electe by a majority of those who voted?

What exactly has PR got to do with the presidents share of the vote?

Dont you think its a tad wrong that the guy who runs the nation does not have a majority of votes on election day?

In 17 elections, the President of the United States was elected with less than a majority of the vote. This is approximately 1/3 of the elections.

Question: What happens if there are 3 canidates, who recieve 30%, 30% and 40% of the vote? Do you really think that there should be continuous elections until someone gets a majority?

[Stuart Mackey]

Not in the least.

I deplore the rolling eyes as an answer but
You have no problem living in a nation where the guy/party that runs the show had a majority of eligible voters vote against him? I feel sorry for you.

Most often, he does have a plurality. To use an anecdote (I know, they're usually bad, but this one is applicable), we had to rewrite our college Student Government's Constitution to alter the voting system. The problem arose when we had seven candidates for three Senator positions. Each student in the academic division could vote for the three they wanted, and the Constitution stated that a Senator must have a majority vote.
Nobody got voted on by more than 50% of the division; thus we had to have a run-off of the five highest-rated candidates, with each person voting for two (they had to vote for "less than half" of the candidates).
Nobody got more than 50% again.
We said "fuck it" and rewrote the Constitution to allow for the three candidates with the highest pluralities to be elected.

This tells me that you used the wrong system.

What does this have to do with the US election? Well, when there are eight candidates for one position (as in Florida for the Presidential election), to require one candidate to recieve over half the vote is not a realistic expectation, in my opinion. To recieve 30% could mean a large margin of victory, if the other seven each get about 10% of the vote. Requiring a majority is not a good idea, especially if we do end up getting third party candidates with real drawing power, like Perot used to have.

Right. So if the winning canidate is a fundimentalist moron who camapains as such and get elected on 30%..I know its not a good analogy but it sure seems like the US is heading that way.