The gloves come off. White hoods, too.

[Keevan_Colton]

While the American political system might have its problems, I don't really understanding the wanking of parliamentary systems and their frequent changes of government. Since 1945 (past 63 years), for example, Italy has had 61 different governments. It's kind of hard to get anything done if you keep changing your government ever 12 months.

By contrast, in the US we've had 11 different Presidents, and control of Congress has changed less frequently than that. Criticize it for its faults, but don't act like the parliamentary system is worlds better. It has its flaws too.

Congratulations on picking Italy as your example. Widely acknowledged to be the most screwed up example of an electoral system that hasn't yet destroyed a country. We're still wondering why in some parts.

Why not take a glance at your closest neighbour for statistics?
Or perhaps dear old Blighty?

[Losonti Tokash]

sixty seat

Because of your electoral system. Don't you understand that 60% of seats aren't up for grabs in a single election?

You know, there is the fact that only 1/3 of the Senate goes up for vote every election.

[Guardsman Bass]

Incumbent politicians have a very significant advantage - it can take a lot to dislodge someone who is already in office, ever moreso when that person has been in office for a long time. A lot of people in Congress are truly career politicians who make their living from being in office; over a quarter of the Senate, and over a tenth of the House, has been in office for over twenty years. A challenger faces the obstacle of having to overcome the familiarity which a long-time incumbent has built up among his or her constituency, among other things.

That doesn't add-in gerrymandering* districts to protect incumbents or minimize the opposition. My local democratic representative, Jim Matheson, is an example of that; the Republican-dominated Utah Legislature tried (in 2000) to gerrymander him out of a seat (and neutralize the political voice of the more Democratic Salt Lake City area) by attaching his relatively liberal Salt Lake County area to a bunch of more-conservative-than-God areas down in Utah's southeast. He barely managed to win by pushing DINO-ness to the extreme, and he's had to balance on the edge of that precipice ever since.

*Just in case, Gerrymandering means to manipulate the boundaries of a seat's electoral area.

[RedImperator]

While a 100% turnover in both houses is impossible, and even in the House it's just not realistic to expect it, given the nature of the American political system ("big tent" major parties and no viable third parties thanks to a winner-takes-all presidential election), the incumbency rate is still disgraceful, especially in the House. An incumbent is going to have natural advantages in any system where there are individually-represented constituencies, but the campaign finance rat race and gerrymandering combine to make those advantages almost insurmountable. How SCOTUS could have ever upheld partisan gerrymandering is beyond me, and there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing it, and the whole campaign finance system ought to be thrown in the trash and rebuilt from scratch.

[Big Phil]

While the American political system might have its problems, I don't really understanding the wanking of parliamentary systems and their frequent changes of government. Since 1945 (past 63 years), for example, Italy has had 61 different governments. It's kind of hard to get anything done if you keep changing your government ever 12 months.

By contrast, in the US we've had 11 different Presidents, and control of Congress has changed less frequently than that. Criticize it for its faults, but don't act like the parliamentary system is worlds better. It has its flaws too.

Congratulations on picking Italy as your example. Widely acknowledged to be the most screwed up example of an electoral system that hasn't yet destroyed a country. We're still wondering why in some parts.

Why not take a glance at your closest neighbour for statistics?
Or perhaps dear old Blighty?

What exactly is your point? Let me guess, America sucks, Canada/England/France/Germany/etc. are better?

The American system of democracy perpetuates slow change and stability; the parliamentary system is more flexible and change can happen quickly. They both have benefits and drawbacks, as the examples of Italy and the past eight years here in the USA clearly demonstrate.

[Big Phil]

While a 100% turnover in both houses is impossible, and even in the House it's just not realistic to expect it, given the nature of the American political system ("big tent" major parties and no viable third parties thanks to a winner-takes-all presidential election), the incumbency rate is still disgraceful, especially in the House. An incumbent is going to have natural advantages in any system where there are individually-represented constituencies, but the campaign finance rat race and gerrymandering combine to make those advantages almost insurmountable. How SCOTUS could have ever upheld partisan gerrymandering is beyond me, and there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing it, and the whole campaign finance system ought to be thrown in the trash and rebuilt from scratch.

SCOTUS was appointed by Democrats and Republicans

[CmdrWilkens]

Which doesn't address whether Republican's were punished.

Actually it addresses it completely.They lost a few seats, but still had more than enough to have an effect on politics. Like I said, you would have expected them to lose every single one of their seats that was up for reelection after Bush's poor performance. They _maybe_ would have held onto one or two of them. The republicans might have been "punished", but in such a weak manner that it made no real difference. I mean, they lost a measly 1/10th of their seats in the house, and less than half their seats in the senate. A sixty seat swing is not amazing except in the context of American politics. It's quite normal in other countries.

Let me start by saying that saying it proves your point doesn't address mine. Lets go with what you stated as the general idea (Republicans weren't punished) and create a standard by which one might judge if they were or weren't. So for starters:

1) Punishment can only reach the level to which people disagree with the actions taken
2) Punishment can only reach to the level that the system allows for

So lets go back and look at the 2006 Senate for starters. The public, even if it had a 0% approval of the Republican party still couldn't do more than take 15 seats from them. If the public approved 100% of what the Republican party stood for they could give them 18 seats. This means there are 33 seats up for grab of which 24 were given to Democrats. This would indicate a Republican brand approval of right around 30%. Now lets switch to the House. There were 435 seats up for consideration as you pointed out and 202 ended up with Reppublicans which would indicate 46% approval. Switch over to Governors and there were 36 governor's houses up for election and the public voted democrats in to 20 of them which would indicate 44% approval rating. For a comprehensive look at major races lets add all this back together. We have 504 elections (though not all contested) of which the Republicans were awarded 227 seats. Prior to this the Republicans held 269 seats. So looking at it in different ways they either lost 15% of their seats OR they hold 45% of available seats. If we measure this against Bush as the leader of the party at the time he had a net of -24 (34% approve against 58% disapprove)


Now those may not be major numbers but lets go compare that against 2001 versus 2005 for Labour in the UK. They went from 402 seats to 355 or a loss of 11% of their seats. The leader of that party (Blair) had an approval rating just shy of 40% (I can't find disapprove numbers). So with 6% better of an approval rating Blair did 26% better in terms of losses. So despite your notion US voters actually punished Republicans MORE relative to their approval of the party's leader than Brits punished Labour relative to approval of their Leader.

[Anguirus]

SCOTUS was appointed by Democrats and Republicans

Way to non sequitur.

[Dark Hellion]

How is it non-sequitur to note that the SCOTUS was put into place by those who most benefit from Gerrymandering. This is in fact a completely relevant answer.

[Terralthra]

How is it non-sequitur to note that the SCOTUS was put into place by those who most benefit from Gerrymandering. This is in fact a completely relevant answer.

Gerrymandering typically favors one party at the expense of the other. If the parties had collaborated to make districts that favored both of them, but not any other parties, it would be relevant, but not as it is right now.

[Stormbringer]

How is it non-sequitur to note that the SCOTUS was put into place by those who most benefit from Gerrymandering. This is in fact a completely relevant answer.

Gerrymandering typically favors one party at the expense of the other. If the parties had collaborated to make districts that favored both of them, but not any other parties, it would be relevant, but not as it is right now.

Frankly, that assumes that both parties aren't perfectly willing to use gerrymandering. As it stands, many districts are drawn so that both parties have a strong incumbency rate. It's definitely a bi-partisan problem and the complaints only happen by the one down at the moment.

[Duckie]

How is it non-sequitur to note that the SCOTUS was put into place by those who most benefit from Gerrymandering. This is in fact a completely relevant answer.

Gerrymandering typically favors one party at the expense of the other. If the parties had collaborated to make districts that favored both of them, but not any other parties, it would be relevant, but not as it is right now.

Ah, but both Democrats and Republicans like to use it- whichever side is in control uses it against the other. Neither one would want to get rid of it, even though it would save them from being gerrymandered, because they wouldn't want to give up the ability to gerrymander the other guy. Kind of like nuclear weapons.

At least, I think that's his point.

[Big Phil]

SCOTUS was appointed by Democrats and Republicans

Way to non sequitur.

While you're dropping in to this thread with your smashing logic, care to explain HOW this is a non sequitur?

[Anguirus]

^ Actually, I am sorry for shooting off that reply. I misread your post. I think I missed the bolded portion of the quote and thus couldn't figure out why you were bringing up Dems and Repubs in relation to a post that mentioned neither.

So, my bad, in other words.

[Metatwaddle]

Still, though, SCOTUS has sometimes been known to abandon partisanship once they get lifetime appointments. Justices Souter and Stevens, currently regarded as liberals, were appointed by Republican presidents. Some of this can be attributed to the court's move to the right, but I don't think all of it can.