American political parties and primarys?

[TheDarkling]

Proportional representation is more democratic however it also leads to unstable coalition governments and crazy fringe groups getting power as well (from the ultra left types who would like to ban cars to the ultra right types who would like to start mass deportation of non-whites), as such I will take FPTP any day and won't lose much sleep over the government not being fully democratic.

[Stormbringer]

But the basis of our government is "Majority Rules". With our current electoral system, there can't be equal representation.

So you would conceed that you congress has no democratic legitimacy?

What the fuck? How do you go from majority rules to no democratic legitimacy? The US has a republican system as a opposed to a genuine democracy so that's how the system works.

And that 20% you speak of is scattered over the whole spectrum from Extreme (and I mean Hitler's wet dream right win) to Extreme Left (Ralph Nader's a sell out!) and the most popular of the groups are hard pressed to get even a percent. They're a non-factor in the politics.

[Stuart Mackey]

How can it be democratic if 15 or even 20 percent of your population have no voice in your government? that unrepresented proportion pays tax with exactly norepresentation.

Uhm, they got representation. They do vote after all, and I really don't
want these crackpots in power:

http://www.nazi.org/

Libertarian National Socialist
Green Party

I am NOT makin this shit up people

actually, the simple act of voting does not logicaly grant representation under a 'first past the post' system, such as you have.
If you wish to exclude idiots like facists, then set a % threshold that a party must pass befor they get seats in your congress.

[Kelly Antilles]

actually, the simple act of voting does not logicaly grant representation under a 'first past the post' system, such as you have.
If you wish to exclude idiots like facists, then set a % threshold that a party must pass befor they get seats in your congress.

But like I said before, people don't like change. Those parties aren't likely to get in because they won't be voted for.

[Stormbringer]

actually, the simple act of voting does not logicaly grant representation under a 'first past the post' system, such as you have.
If you wish to exclude idiots like facists, then set a % threshold that a party must pass befor they get seats in your congress.

We have, it just varies from election to election.

[paladin]

actually, the simple act of voting does not logicaly grant representation under a 'first past the post' system, such as you have.
If you wish to exclude idiots like facists, then set a % threshold that a party must pass befor they get seats in your congress.[/quote]

As long as the facists can win seats in Congress, they should be allowed in. But their political views wouldn't be shared by the people in their Congressional district, so a facist changes of getting elect would be minimum.

[Stuart Mackey]

But the basis of our government is "Majority Rules". With our current electoral system, there can't be equal representation.

So you would conceed that you congress has no democratic legitimacy?

What the fuck? How do you go from majority rules to no democratic legitimacy? The US has a republican system as a opposed to a genuine democracy so that's how the system works.

what do you not grasp about 20% of your voting population not having representation?

And that 20% you speak of is scattered over the whole spectrum from Extreme (and I mean Hitler's wet dream right win) to Extreme Left (Ralph Nader's a sell out!) and the most popular of the groups are hard pressed to get even a percent. They're a non-factor in the politics.

And how, pray tell, do you know that? your electoral system is set up in a way that your nation has no efective way of having a valid alternative choice in viable canidates. If other nations with proportional systems are a guide extrems very rarley, if ever, get into government, but peoples actual preferences are properly represented.

[Stuart Mackey]

actually, the simple act of voting does not logicaly grant representation under a 'first past the post' system, such as you have.
If you wish to exclude idiots like facists, then set a % threshold that a party must pass befor they get seats in your congress.

As long as the facists can win seats in Congress, they should be allowed in. But their political views wouldn't be shared by the people in their Congressional district, so a facist changes of getting elect would be minimum.

this is true under most current democratic systems.

[Stormbringer]

what do you not grasp about 20% of your voting population not having representation?

The point is that isn't a twenty percent group but a lot of groups that would be lucky to muster a 1/10th of a percent that total up to twenty percent. They wouldn't get a representative anyway. Even the Green Party (the most popular independent party in a while) barely mustered 2%.

And how, pray tell, do you know that? your electoral system is set up in a way that your nation has no efective way of having a valid alternative choice in viable canidates. If other nations with proportional systems are a guide extrems very rarley, if ever, get into government, but peoples actual preferences are properly represented.

This way is how it works here in the States. We avoid the ineffective extremists altogether. It's not that they can't run so much as they can't get the votes to win.

Why should we let every last fringe party have a seat exactly?

[paladin]

The real reason of why the fringe political parties rarely win elections in the US is because of MONEY. The money and support the major parties have will always crush them. Also, I think the fringe parties are much smaller percentage of the US political landscape.

[Stormbringer]

The real reason of why the fringe political parties rarely win elections in the US is because of MONEY. The money and support the major parties have will always crush them. Also, I think the fringe parties are much smaller percentage of the US political landscape.

I think the latter has as much do with it, if not more, than the former. Even the best financed "third parties" have failed to get any significant votes at the national level. It's a simple matter of their platforms.

[Stuart Mackey]

The point is that isn't a twenty percent group but a lot of groups that would be lucky to muster a 1/10th of a percent that total up to twenty percent. They wouldn't get a representative anyway. Even the Green Party (the most popular independent party in a while) barely mustered 2%.

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.

This way is how it works here in the States. We avoid the ineffective extremists altogether. It's not that they can't run so much as they can't get the votes to win.

Why should we let every last fringe party have a seat exactly?

Who said extremists would get in with a proportional system? most nations set a % threshhold to prevent it, 5% is about average IIRC. Given that extreamists get 0.5%, if that, you dont have much to worry about.

[Stuart Mackey]

The real reason of why the fringe political parties rarely win elections in the US is because of MONEY. The money and support the major parties have will always crush them. Also, I think the fringe parties are much smaller percentage of the US political landscape.

I would say its your electoral system that disourages other parties, they never get a look in, followed by money.

[Alex Moon]

The real reason of why the fringe political parties rarely win elections in the US is because of MONEY. The money and support the major parties have will always crush them. Also, I think the fringe parties are much smaller percentage of the US political landscape.

The two major parties in the US tend to be pretty broad in terms of ideology. If you look at the Democratic party, you find Radical Environmentalists next to Unions who are next to immigrants, groups who have traditionally held opposing views on many issues. Its the same for the Republicans. Most third parties are formed by those at the far extremes and so aren't likely to attract support from the more moderate population.

[Tsyroc]

I would say its your electoral system that disourages other parties, they never get a look in, followed by money.

It certainly doesn't encourage them.

By the way, you might find it interesting that originally the writers of the US Constitution hoped that we wouldn't have a party system. In fact, originally our President was the person who got the most electoral votes and the Vice President was the person who came in second. While this meant we had some excellent people in both spots it also meant that we had people of different beliefs (and later parties) in the top two spots.

This set up was later changed so the President ran with a VP.

So you can see how some of the glitches in our system are likely because the FF were trying to set up a system where it was always the best man because there wouldn't be any party alliances.

[Stormbringer]

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.

Who said extremists would get in with a proportional system? most nations set a % threshhold to prevent it, 5% is about average IIRC. Given that extreamists get 0.5%, if that, you dont have much to worry about.

Like I've said, they won't. And in all likely hood neither would the fringe parties. None has managed to get the necessary votes even for federal funding. It's pretty clear that people simply don't want third parties in most cases.

[Joe]

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.

Perot? An Independent, but still a moderately successful alternative.

[Knife]

The real reason of why the fringe political parties rarely win elections in the US is because of MONEY. The money and support the major parties have will always crush them. Also, I think the fringe parties are much smaller percentage of the US political landscape.

The two major parties in the US tend to be pretty broad in terms of ideology. If you look at the Democratic party, you find Radical Environmentalists next to Unions who are next to immigrants, groups who have traditionally held opposing views on many issues. Its the same for the Republicans. Most third parties are formed by those at the far extremes and so aren't likely to attract support from the more moderate population.

Exactly, where as other forms of goverment have to set up colalitions to effectively run, the US varient has such colalitions inherent in the parties themselves. While admittedly, sometimes this dosn't work as well as others, it does tend to suck up most of the straggelers of particular ideological bents and only leave extremist and true independents on the outside to form 3rd party opposition.

[RedImperator]

Didn't we have this debate once already Stuart?

The primary function of American political parties is NOT to elect congressmen, senators, state governors, state legislators, local mayors, or dog catchers. It is to elect the President. The nature of the Presidency and the electoral system outlined in the Constitution dictates the nature of the party system. I'm not referring to the Electoral College here--the entire Federalist system almost guarantees a two-party system, and the only time that system has broken down is when the second party collapses and temporarily leaves one party dominant (it happened twice in the 19th century, once when the Federalist party imploded after the War of 1812 and again when the Whig party disintegrated in the 1850s over slavery).

Even with proportional and party-list voting (which would require a Constitutional amendment to work because right now there's no way to deal with the consequences of a breakdown in a coalition government in Congress), you'd still end up with two dominant broad based parties. That's because the Presidency is an all-or-nothing deal: once he's in, he's in for at least four years unless he has a heart attack or gets shot, and has tremendous power as both the head of government (and thus the head of ALL Federal agencies except the General Accounting Office, plus the military) and the head of state (the symbol of the American government both at home and abroad, with all access to the bully pulpit that implies). There have only been two presidents in legitimate danger of losing their position before their terms ran out: Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, who so infuriated the Radical Republicans in Congress they passed a law they knew he would break just to impeach him, and Richard Nixon, a crook with zero popular legitimacy who resigned once his own party told him they weren't going to stop an impeachment and convition in the Senate. Unlike the Prime Minister in parliamentary systems, the President is never threatened with a no-confidence vote. The fact that Presidents often govern without majorities in Congress (I'll have to check, but I believe that's the case more often than not, at least in the 20th century) speaks volumes about the difference between the American and British systems.

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.

[phongn]

The fact that Presidents often govern without majorities in Congress (I'll have to check, but I believe that's the case more often than not, at least in the 20th century) speaks volumes about the difference between the American and British systems.

IIRC, it is fairly rare that both the President and Congress both remain under control of a single party.

[MKSheppard]

Also, this bullshit proportional representation, forces parliaments to
actually listen to whackjobs, such as the Greens in Germany (the Luftwaffe
has an airbase in the US where they train, because they can't train in
Germany, thanks to BS Green regulations), and in Israel, the whackjob
far-right religious parties have too much power in the Israeli government
thanks to their parliament system.

[Ignorant twit]

So what type of electoral system do we need? Can't follow the French model, I mean seriously what happened to all those votes that didn't vote Chirac or Le Pen. Wasn't it only 34% of the vote that actually got a choice? Must burn the English system as well, as it is geographically based.

So who should our model be? Oh I know Israel. The knesset is wholly proportional and they have a 1.5% threshold, and don't they have a nice stable government

True proportional representation is a bad thing, it garuntees that single issue parties can get elected, for instance the first one in the US if we did this would likely be a legalize-pot-party of some type. Once such a party gets into the system the larger parties write off these issues ... it won't bring them more clout and if they agree in principle they can ally as convient ... why tie yourself down explicitly? In the end without any restraint you end up with more and more parties and hideously fragile coalitions. This is a BAD thing as certain parties can play kingmaker and extort MASSIVE concessions in exchange for control of the government.

As much power as the fundies have now can you imagine how much they'd have if they had an independant party with the balance of power between the Dems and Reps? Imagine for a moment that they asked for something like prayer in schools, posting the 10 commandments, or funding for religious schools in exchange for control of the whole frikking legislature? Do you honestly beleive that either of the major parties wouldn't jump into bed and publically write it off as a blatant political concession?


I find it highly unlikely that true proportional representation would actually result in a government that acts as the representatives of the people. More likely certain factions would trade political support for far reaching concessions not proportional to their strength. Seriously look at Israel and see how well true proportional representation works and if you think it reflects the will of the people.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The American system works fine. We get exactly what we deserve.


Since the majority of people in America don't vote, then logicaly there should be no one holding elected office, since noboby gets more votes than everybody else put together.

This is the result of bad logic, caried to it's logical end.

The majority of those that BOTHER TO VOTE, get their candidate elected, got it?
The system would be more representative of the population at large, if more of the population at large weren't passive.
In America, the average man doesn't think about government, except when it goes awry.
The government works so well, to the satisfaction of the majority, that the majority don't vote. Which is in and of it's self, a form of voting!

People who don't care enough to vote shouldn't get a say in things.
In America, they DON"T.
If only they would shut the fuck up, or vote.

There is no procedural, or elective remedy for voter apathy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I posted an article here by Tony Evans on the history of the American Two Party system (you can probably look it up - It's obviously not the one on the Franco-Prussian War). You must realize that the Republican and Democrat Parties are actually coalition groups of a sort, and highly inclusive and moderate. So really you're not choosing from two parties so much as the Left Coalition or the Right Coalition. There are lots of groups within each party which can often be highly at odds with each other.

The brilliance of the American system is that it moderates the potential instability of other forms of democracy. This is why we should never have proportional representation, which can allow radical and unstable parties into positions of great power. In the American system, these parties have to become part of one of the two coalition parties to have any power, and in those parties their views will be moderated.

Seriously, no more than on average about 3% and at most 10% of the electoral, usually a number between those two, votes for fringe parties or independent candidates (and those can get elected sometimes). So our system responds to the will of a supermajority. And in each district, the victor is installed into office. Now, 49% of the population might have voted for the opposing candidate in that district, granted - But since we only have two parties, in general if in one district 51% of the populace voted for one, and 49% for the other, that's the way it's going to be on the national level - So for the whole nation, there will be proportional representation.

(Though in very urban or very rural areas this can be radically skewed, but that, again, generally balances out).

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.

[The Dark]

the entire Federalist system almost guarantees a two-party system, and the only time that system has broken down is when the second party collapses and temporarily leaves one party dominant (it happened twice in the 19th century, once when the Federalist party imploded after the War of 1812 and again when the Whig party disintegrated in the 1850s over slavery).

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.