The General Political Thread

[Duuring]

You don't have to convince me.

[Furrnox]

The most Hitler got in a "real" election was 44%.

[StevenChilton]

Proportional representation sucks, so does multi-party FPTP. The best electoral system is what the US has, i.e. two major parties within a FPTP voting system but with primary elections too. It's the primary elections that are the key feature since they tend to encourage there to be only two big tent main parties, which makes FPTP fair. Also your average American has far more democratic control over who represents them than your average European living in a PR system, since the American decides candidate selection too. That's not really possible under PR. Not only does that mean candidates who better reflect who they represent but it also keeps them honest after they're elected.

[Furrnox]

You can at least in Sweden vote for whatever candidate you please that is from your province.

[DaMonkey]

Sweden is an illustrious example to all in these political climes.

[Conway]

The most Hitler got in a "real" election was 44%.

Yes but a total of 52% voted for NSDAP and KPD, both anti-democratic parties. So based on a strictly democratic mandate, Germany didn't want democracy.

[Duuring]

Proportional representation sucks, so does multi-party FPTP. The best electoral system is what the US has, i.e. two major parties within a FPTP voting system but with primary elections too. It's the primary elections that are the key feature since they tend to encourage there to be only two big tent main parties, which makes FPTP fair. Also your average American has far more democratic control over who represents them than your average European living in a PR system, since the American decides candidate selection too. That's not really possible under PR. Not only does that mean candidates who better reflect who they represent but it also keeps them honest after they're elected.

The best system how? Give me one criteria in which the US electoral system objectively scores better then PR-systems.

Also your average American has far more democratic control over who represents them than your average European living in a PR system, since the American decides candidate selection too

We have preferential votes and party primaries too, so that's simply not true.

[StevenChilton]

Primary elections are rare in Europe, most places don't have them.

If you want just one example then the obvious benefit of two-party FPTP is you get what you vote for. It's clearly more democratic if you form your coalitions *within the party, before the general election* as voters know what they're getting. Under PR it's after the voting ends that they always have to hash out some kind of deal behind closed doors that pleases almost nobody.   

[Duuring]

Ignoring the fact that a great share of voters within FPTP do not vote at all or do not vote for the party of their preference because it's unrealistic or it simply does not exist. FPTP kills off the alternatives and then you cry 'yay it's democratic now!'. You get what you voted for? Yeah, unless you happen to (wish to) vote for a third party.

Not to mention that governments coming to power in a FPTP system almost never actually gain the actual majority of votes. The Conservatives in 2015 got only 36.6%. Almost 2 of every 3 British voters who actually cast their vote (Because 1 in 3 of voters actually didn't even bother going to the polls) voted something else then Conservatives, yet the government consisted solely of Conservatives and persued only Conservative policies. With PR systems, the coalition government is the combined position of parties that actually represent a majority of the citizens.
'
No, nobody is happy with giving up on some policies, but guess what: That's life. People have very different opinions on matters. Those opinions needs to be represented, even if they do not become policy. That's the purpose of parliament. It's a farce to say 'well, that's too difficult!' and simply create a system in which small parties are killed off one by one until there are only two options left.

[Furrnox]

The most Hitler got in a "real" election was 44%.

Yes but a total of 52% voted for NSDAP and KPD, both anti-democratic parties. So based on a strictly democratic mandate, Germany didn't want democracy.

Well it makes sense if you look at the situation they were in and how they longed back to the empire era.

[Theodin]

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".

Of course there are swing states. The way I see it those states are those which don't vote consistently for party (such as NY, IL, CA) but the ones that play kingmaker in elections (FL, OH, WN). Those states fluctuate in voting patterns, and decide elections. 

[Conway]

Glad to see our opposition getting into the festive season.
Best donation advert I've seen yet.

[Edwin]

https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-martin-schulz-wants-united-states-of-europe-by-2025

Whoa! Who could have seen this coming?

[Sgt.Winters]

https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-martin-schulz-wants-united-states-of-europe-by-2025

Whoa! Who could have seen this coming?

I'm more concerned with the fact that the caption says Schulz is waving when he is actually giving the thumbs up.

[Edwin]

It's the new EUSSR salute!