The General Political Thread

[Furrnox]

Nah you're just bad at it.

[Toffee]

Nah you're just bad at it.

U wot

[Riddlez]

The UK has literally been a testimony over the past few government terms to how much a coalition can fuck shit up

NL had the proportional system for a while now and they still manage to get a coalition with 4 ruling parties... okay yeah this is where it really begins to strain but if the country is usedd to compromise (which I grant, is fairly hard for a culture of (ex) world powers) then it will make it work.

[Toffee]

Compromise can be a good thing at times but in British culture you’re either left wing or right wing, there isn’t really a party that bridges the gap very well and everyone hates each others guts too much to work together

[Karth]

No. What you just mentioned is why you have senators & house representatives, the electoral college is just a scam.

Lol you clearly don't understand the power of the executive branch and the impact of federal laws and regulations over state governments.  Senators and the House only do so much in terms of voting on behalf of their constituents, but there is a gazillion more issues that the president himself Must act on; that won't be effectively represented by ones senator or house of representative, and this forces candidates to campaign on a state by state basis. Why do you think trump won? Clinton campaigned in only big cities and already democratic strongholds, while trump went to middle America, small towns, etc... places which have different issues than others

It's not a perfect system by any means, but works best because of how our country is structured.

[DaMonkey]

the electoral college is just a scam.

The electoral college has been a mechanism from the beginning to trying to prevent pure, direct democracy - as its nothing but mismanagement by the mob; it also protects, in some small part, "geographic minorities" from getting brute forced in Federal politics. It's also the only reason we aren't even more fractured, or perhaps even already balkanized, as a country.

[Riddlez]

the electoral college is just a scam.

The electoral college has been a mechanism from the beginning to trying to prevent pure, direct democracy - as its nothing but mismanagement by the mob; it also protects, in some small part, "geographic minorities" from getting brute forced in Federal politics. It's also the only reason we aren't even more fractured, or perhaps even already balkanized, as a country.

And was that its or was it beacuse direct citizen voting was too time-consuming and troublesome back then?

[DaMonkey]

I'm not so sure that holds much water. States are still going through all the trouble of holding elections, those votes are just not being calculated for a national plurality/majority. Amusingly, it was a measure to ensure that Virginia and its similar southern States would not impose its will through brute political force on New England (remembering that back then, Virginia was basically the mack daddy); it's basically the reverse now but it's the same purpose.

EDIT Also note that it wasn't even particularly difficult to hold election, as not many people even actually voted. Remember that it was restricted to adult white men who were at least (40? I can't remember the age requirement) and owned land or some form of real estate (house or business that wasn't rented).

[Duuring]

But for real, this was setup to protect states rights, otherwise you'd have a few of the largest states deciding the election every year.

Karth, even if that was true, the electoral college does a reaaaaaal shitty job of securing state's right. You just need the 13 biggest states to win over 270 electoral college. You can literally pretend 37 states do not exist and become the president. Of course, it doesn't work like that because, unlike what Americans like to imagine, there are no red or blue states and populations of states do not actually vote in one similair way.

The electoral college does two things:
1. Give a disproportional amount of power to the voters in smaller states. It doesn't actually give power to smaller states themselve, because states are merely electoral boundaries during the Presidential elections and it's the people who cast votes.
2. Marginalize electoral minorities. It's so funny that you praise the electoral college for 'allowing votes to matter' and point at the Bible belt. What about cities in Texas that are strongly Democratic? What about the rural areas of California that are strongly Republican? Their votes are completely meaningless.

I'm not so sure that holds much water. States are still going through all the trouble of holding elections, those votes are just not being calculated for a national plurality/majority. Amusingly, it was a measure to ensure that Virginia and its similar southern States would not impose its will through brute political force on New England (remembering that back then, Virginia was basically the mack daddy); it's basically the reverse now but it's the same purpose.

EDIT Also note that it wasn't even particularly difficult to hold election, as not many people even actually voted. Remember that it was restricted to adult white men who were at least (40? I can't remember the age requirement) and owned land or some form of real estate (house or business that wasn't rented).

Most states did not even hold popular elections for president, but had the state legislature elect the electors.



Can we also please stop the 'Coalition lead to unstable politics!!!'-meme. No, they don't. They only do in countries that are not used to coalitions, but even then the meme is mostly just shouted by politicians who are scared they won't receive a majority. "The weimar Republic!! Think of the Weimar Republic!!111". Guys, surprise, guess what; people are actually quite diverse in their political preferences and you can't really divide entire populations in just two political sides.

[Furrnox]

Yeah even in California there's 30-35% Republicans who get's their votes nullified because winner takes all, like you said Duuring.

[Theodin]

None of that probably legitimate argument nullifies the electoral college, it just means it should be proportionate instead of winner take all. The U.S has the electoral college for the same reason Canada doesn’t - so massive politically homogeneous voting blocks don’t swing the election. Notice the big states don’t swing presidential elections, it’s the medium sized ones that do, usually in the Midwest, so having the most democratic and most populated state (I think) swing blue every election doesn’t automatically mean they win it for the candidate.

It’s also a fun thing to notice that after every election it’s the losing party that complains about the E.C, but not the winner. :thinking:

[Duuring]

Complaining about massive politically homogenious voting blocks yet having a system that pretty much forces people into a massive politically homogenious voting block. Love it.

For the love of God stop argueing that states win elections. They don't. There are no 'swing states'. States do not swing. In the presidential elections, they are just geographical boundaries in which the population within that boundary happen to be roughly evenly divided politically. That's it. That's a swing state. You know the definition of a 'safe' state? It's a state in which the political division is so strongly in favour of one political side that everybody can just safely ignore their entire population and everything they want, because their electoral votes have been decided.

It’s also a fun thing to notice that after every election it’s the losing party that complains about the E.C, but not the winner. :thinking:

It's why people need to stop blindly repeating the arguments made by politicians. Electoral reform is so hard exactly because people lose the will to reform once the system favours them. That doesn't make the system suddenly fair. And then they just copy the same bullshit arguments of their opponents. "Majority systems create stronger trust in politics! They create stability!!!!1111 THINK OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC!!11".

[DaMonkey]

"Majority systems create stronger trust in politics! They create stability!!!!1111 THINK OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC!!11".

I've heard of the Weimar Republic being used as refutation of some things, but not that. I can tell it perturbs you, though, from all those numerics.

[Duuring]

It's just a joke related to the fact that no matter how small a German political crisis can be, there will always be someone, usually a foreigner, mentioning the Weimar Republic. It's also always given as an example when people try to convince me of the evils of proportional representation and coalition governments. I specialize in comparative Political Science and electoral systems, so I have a lot of those discussions.

[Conway]

"Majority systems create stronger trust in politics! They create stability!!!!1111 THINK OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC!!11".

52% of germans in 1932 voted for a party that was against democracy which is exactly what they got. Evening using popular vote Hitler would be justified enough to be named chancellor as his party was the most popular. Which wouldn't really change much.