The GOP is predicted to take over the Senate and gain control of the congress after elections in Sep
103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45641398]Not really, we can actually look at the parties overall and genuinely make a judgement that one party is better or worse. Just because one side may have one or two good ideas does not pass off the eight and a half thousand awful, idiotic ones, and it does not make them equal to one that may have hundreds of crap ideas, but far more at least passable ones and far more good ones.
That's the middle of the road bullshit I'm talking about. "They're just as bad as each other!" is crap. And if you believe that yourself, you're delusional or in denial.[/QUOTE]
Your in denial if you don't get that both republicans and democrats at roughly equal rate, dosn't care about passing legislation that will help people. Politicians today spend most of their time fundraising, it's all theater. A good portion of them also plays the revolving door game: [url]https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/[/url]
[QUOTE=Shinycow;45636597]Sorry I don't appeal to you and 9/10 of SH.
If a Democrat fucks up you twats always seem to find a way to say, "oh, it's not that bad."
But if a Republican fucks up, "oh my god why do these idiots constantly vote these people into a position of authority?!"
No matter what I say, I'll be rated dumb. And I frankly don't really care.
I don't really hate democrats, it's just some of the ideas that the party revolves around is dumb. It's nice in concept, but dumb as in it wouldn't work. We don't have the money as a country to fucking supply [B]dumbasses who can't be bothered to find a fucking job money constantly.[/B]
fuck[/QUOTE]
Oh so you're one of those "poor people suck and are clearly poor because they don't [I]try[/I] hard enough and are parasites so why should my money go to help them."
I hate you kind of fucking people.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;45636723][video=youtube;0BzItCPk5j4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4[/video]
This kinda is why[/QUOTE]
And democrats don't have their crazies too?
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;45636860]you guys have a party which is run of the mill-corrupt and another that is veering towards batshit crazy corrupt(their obsession with rape for instance is half-hilarious/half-creepy/insane), which one do you think (sane) people will prefer. :v:
[T]http://i.imgur.com/2Pt1F.gif[/T][/QUOTE]
You know everybody says fucked up things occasionally, I doubt it's difficult to create an image like that for any party.
Though republicans views on rape are in general pretty terrible.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45640272]Believe it or not, there are some good republicans and there are some shitty democrats.
Voting based on "x party is better" is just as bad as voting based on a single issue, or not voting at all.
Looking at your politician as a whole, regardless of party lines, is the best way to cast a vote.[/QUOTE]
that implies that politicians themselves don't vote on legislation based on party lines.
these days it seems, republican politicians can't win elections unless they display that they're crazier and farther to the right than their peers. more of that signature tea party 'no-compromise-my-opinion-is-right-because-fox-news-said-so-and-anyone-who-contradicts-me-hates-america' stuff. how do you think that nutty professor beat out eric cantor in his district?
meanwhile the democratic party just generally seems discouraged and lost on trying to find candidates that don't seem repulsive.
basically, what it comes down to is, "i don't like the person i'm voting for, and they certainly don't represent my beliefs, but i don't have much of a choice when the only other person available lives in various levels of delusion regarding inequality, science, and natural rights"
my district, for example, had to choose between a fresh-off-the-block new-face democratic politician that nobody knew anybody about (patrick murphy) v.s. one of the most insane republican representatives to ever hold federally elected office for the state of florida (allen west)
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45642026]And democrats don't have their crazies too?[/QUOTE]
Democrat crazies don't dominate their entire fucking party. For Republicans however, global warming denial is part of their party line.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;45636004]
Half of your country can't be bothered to vote! The price we pay for being a society of apathetic little shits is rule by the incompetent and evil.[/QUOTE]
I've only been old enough for one midterm and one presidential election and even still I have to say it's basically impossible not to become apathetic. I can't believe how much I just don't care anymore. Both party platforms are garbage and I'd have been better off not knowing anything about either and just being a low-info swing voter moron.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45642026]And democrats don't have their crazies too?
You know everybody says fucked up things occasionally, I doubt it's difficult to create an image like that for any party.
Though republicans views on rape are in general pretty terrible.[/QUOTE]
I found one already!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0MS7Z-Sjc[/media]
Aren't we all glad that this person got recalled?
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;45642706]Democrat crazies don't dominate their entire fucking party. For Republicans however, global warming denial is part of their party line.[/QUOTE]
No.... Instead the Democrats got shitheads like Yee who promotes gun control, and in the background, helps his buddies get away with gun smuggling to far-left guerillas in the Philippines. He was also aided by other state legislators in California, and they were all busted by the ATF.
You also have some other accounts of state legislators and such being involved in smuggling firearms into Australia and Mexico, but yeah.
Honestly, both parties are fucked.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;45641270]Unfortunately due to the way the the US election system is set up, It will always revert to 2 parties.
[video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638[/video]
Not even that but I feel like Gerrymandering is getting more common in the US.
[video=youtube;Mky11UJb9AY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&index=3&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638[/video]
We seriously need to reform our Political Election system in the US, but the problem with that is that no Politician would ever do that because it's just easier to get elected the current way by bribing your way to the top.[/QUOTE]
People really don't need to quote CPGrey videos every time there's something in the news which favours the party you are against.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45642026]
You know everybody says fucked up things occasionally, I doubt it's difficult to create an image like that for any party.[/QUOTE]
Unless America has some kind of Rape Party I don't think it would be very easy to make another image like [i]that[/i].
But unfortunately it seems the GOP is the party Americans want. If it was a legitimately bad party the country would have a way of shutting the whole thing down.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45644692]People really don't need to quote CPGrey videos every time there's something in the news which favours the party you are against.[/QUOTE]
but people do need to quote CPGrey videos every time someone tries to bring up third parties
because we explain time and time again that it cannot work because of our voting system
[QUOTE=joes33431;45648095]but people do need to quote CPGrey videos every time someone tries to bring up third parties
because we explain time and time again that it cannot work because of our voting system[/QUOTE]
What's the alternative that you'd propose?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648145]What's the alternative that you'd propose?[/QUOTE]
wow so you don't even get the point of the CPGrey videos
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648664]wow so you don't even get the point of the CPGrey videos[/QUOTE]
No I'm asking him for what his suggestion would be, because CPGrey barely covers anything relative to the entire field.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648684]No I'm asking him for what his suggestion would be, because CPGrey barely covers anything relative to the entire field.[/QUOTE]
yeah, 30 minutes + worth of videos explaining different systems of elective power is "barely anything"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648695]yeah, 30 minutes + worth of videos explaining different systems of elective power is "barely anything"[/QUOTE]
What system would you propose for the United States?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648707]What system would you propose for the United States?[/QUOTE]
there is no such thing as a perfect system.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648709]there is no such thing as a perfect system.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say perfect? I'm asking what you would propose?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648718]I didn't say perfect? I'm asking what you would propose?[/QUOTE]
You're not asking an expert in the field this question. you're asking a random person.
you seem to have not watched any of the videos you're shitting on, so give them a watch rather than ignore it.
[editline]10th August 2014[/editline]
mixed member proportional voting. that's what i'd suggest.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648723]You're not asking an expert in the field this question. you're asking a random person.
you seem to have not watched any of the videos you're shitting on, so give them a watch rather than ignore it.[/QUOTE]
I've watched them all years ago, and then some. I also study third year politics at university. You don't need to be an expert to have an idea of what system you would like, but considering you've consistently avoided the question I don't think you've even watched any of those videos yourself.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648743]I've watched them all years ago, and then some. I also study third year politics at university. You don't need to be an expert to have an idea of what system you would like, but considering you've consistently avoided the question I don't think you've even watched any of those videos yourself.[/QUOTE]
I have. I've watched them all.
But okay, you have your fun with your assumptions
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648723]mixed member proportional voting. that's what i'd suggest.[/QUOTE]
How would your system deal with overhang seats, and are you able to distinguish it from the additional member system?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648723]You're not asking an expert in the field this question. you're asking a random person.
you seem to have not watched any of the videos you're shitting on, so give them a watch rather than ignore it.
[editline]10th August 2014[/editline]
mixed member proportional voting. that's what i'd suggest.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall him "shitting" on those videos by any stretch of the word...just saying they don't need posting every damn time someone mentions having more than two parties in the US electoral system. In fact, there wasn't even an opinion of the videos in any posts made by Antdawg, so unless he's shat on them in the past, you're arguing against literally nothing.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;45641758]Oh so you're one of those "poor people suck and are clearly poor because they don't [I]try[/I] hard enough and are parasites so why should my money go to help them."
I hate you kind of fucking people.[/QUOTE]
You're a moron and you're twisting my words.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648756]How would your system deal with overhang seats, and are you able to distinguish it from the additional member system?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I never claimed to know.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648782]I don't know. I never claimed to know.[/QUOTE]
Well you shouldn't have made out that I didn't know what I was talking about. But still, credit where it is due, at least you weren't a moron who would propose instant runoff single-winner elections as if it would solve all the problems in US politics, because it wouldn't solve any currently existing under the single-winner plurality electoral system over there.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648812]Well you shouldn't have made out that I didn't know what I was talking about. But still, credit where it is due, at least you weren't a moron who would propose instant runoff single-winner elections as if it would solve all the problems in US politics, because it wouldn't solve any currently existing under the current single-winner plurality electoral system over there.[/QUOTE]
How could I assume you know what you're talking about?
You assumed enough about me from your first post back to me, when I never claimed to know enough to make any sort of decision like that at any point in this discussion. I don't know what the best method would be. I really don't. I'd like to know, but there probably isn't one that works without flaws.
generally I doubt what people on the internet say until they demonstrate I shouldn't.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45648834]How could I assume you know what you're talking about?
You assumed enough about me from your first post back to me, when I never claimed to know enough to make any sort of decision like that at any point in this discussion. I don't know what the best method would be. I really don't. I'd like to know, but there probably isn't one that works without flaws.
generally I doubt what people on the internet say until they demonstrate I shouldn't.[/QUOTE]
Well I can say regarding your idea of MMP that overhang seats could be accounted for in two ways. Either the overhang seats are just allowed without any balance seats, providing the party(s) that receive overhang seats with a disproportionately higher seat outcome than dictated by the party vote, or balance seats can be provided to all the other parties to ensure each party receives a number of seats proportionate to the party vote even if another party has overhang seats.
Then you have the additional member system which is like MMP, but overhang seats reduce the number of list seats allocatable to the other parties (in other words, overhang seats are treated as if they were allocatable list seats, making the results rather disproportionate) instead of increasing the size of the legislature ala overhangs in MMP. CPGrey doesn't cover overhangs in his video on MMP, which he really should have.
Then there's also stuff like MMP is still prone to gerrymandering, especially so as it can cause overhangs if done well enough, and that only having a single representative per constituency (nothing stopping the system from having multi-member local constituencies, but no implementation has ever done this) means only a fraction of the voters receive local representation while the rest are disenfranchised (unless their preferred party won list seats).
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45648881]Well I can say regarding your idea of MMP that overhang seats could be accounted for in two ways. Either the overhang seats are just allowed without any balance seats, providing the party(s) that receive overhang seats with a disproportionately higher seat outcome than dictated by the party vote, or balance seats can be provided to all the other parties to ensure each party receives a number of seats proportionate to the party vote even if another party has overhang seats.
Then you have the additional member system which is like MMP, but overhang seats reduce the number of list seats allocatable to the other parties (in other words, overhang seats are treated as if they were allocatable list seats, making the results rather disproportionate) instead of increasing the size of the legislature ala overhangs in MMP. CPGrey doesn't cover overhangs in his video on MMP, which he really should have.
Then there's also stuff like MMP is still prone to gerrymandering, especially so as it can cause overhangs if done well enough, and that only having a single representative per constituency (nothing stopping the system from having multi-member local constituencies, but no implementation has ever done this) means only a fraction of the voters receive local representation while the rest are disenfranchised (unless their preferred party won list seats).[/QUOTE]
I thought one of his videos went over an MMP system with a alternative vote system in place to allow for a more balanced representation, though gerrymandering was still possibly a problem in that system.
I'm pretty sure I saw that video, but I may be wrong. But thank you for explaining that to me.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45649003]I thought one of his videos went over an MMP system with a alternative vote system in place to allow for a more balanced representation, though gerrymandering was still possibly a problem in that system.
I'm pretty sure I saw that video, but I may be wrong. But thank you for explaining that to me.[/QUOTE]
By alternative vote I assume you mean instant runoff? It wouldn't really have much of an effect over plurality voting for constituency elections (as used by Germany and NZ). This is because vote splitting doesn't usually happen in reality, eg the US has primaries for candidate selection before general elections. Preferencing also doesn't necessarily lead to more third party representation for constituencies, as the candidates that win will still be from the big parties and will command majority support after preferences (perfect case study is the Australian House of Reps which uses instant runoff and is no better than the US regarding party outcomes). The only other point of instant runoff is to minimise wasted votes, but it's pointless as it still leads to disenfranchised voters because of the single-winner system for constituencies.
