FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No job requires a resume. Resumes are used by employers to quickly weed out the unqualfied. They are, however, under no requirement to. They could hire someone to be head manager with only a GED if the wanted to.
Proposals for Electoral Reform
- Thread starter Cancel11
- Start date
No job requires a resume. Resumes are used by employers to quickly weed out the unqualfied. They are, however, under no requirement to. They could hire someone to be head manager with only a GED if the wanted to.
Ah yes, I guess I would mean that. Except I don't. The selection of candidates are made by the party before the voter gets to decide on where they fall on the list. Therefore the party still controls the candidates in most open party list systems. They are equally slaves of the party, with an illusion of supposed independence.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
A candidate could always run as an independent under open party list, and kicking out a popular candidate would cost them popularity, just like under our current system. Under STV, parties could kick candidates out just as easily, and they could run as independents just as easily.
I'll admit that the only real reason to favor open party list over STV is simplicity. STV is essentially two methods in one (IRV plus the transfer of surplus votes), and people get confused enough just hearing about IRV.
Good Luck
New member
Rigggghht.
Should have known to try honest debate with a mindless twit. Try again when you grow up. (which I doubt will ever happen.)
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
OH NOEZ YOU HURT MY FEELINGS
Because the higher the number, the better the Representation.
Currently, each member represents an average of 690,000 people. By increasing the House membership to 548, we'll cut that number down to 547,000 people. This will make it less costly to run a campaign, increasing the chance of "average Joes" being elected to Congress. Also, concentrating representation brings government closer to the people. Are you opposed to that, Watermark?
It is true that a practical limit will be reached, unless extensive renovations are made to the House chamber. But in the meantime, why not increase it?
Watermark, your claim that the electoral college is "idiotic" reveals your level of smugness and ignorance. The electoral college made perfect sense in its day, and does continue to serve its purpose. I don't think our founders were idiots for putting that system into place; I simply believe IRV would better serve in the interests of the people.
Another reform (without eliminating the college) would be to enact IRV at the State level, with the majority winner in a State receiving the electoral votes from that respective State.
Last edited:
Not often enough to make a difference for the party control. If a person is elected as part of the party, they will not be reselected to be run as a party candidate the next time if they do not follow the party line. They may run as an independent, but they don't win often enough to punish the party.
I prefer proportional to "open party" lists.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep we did for president twice....
cawacko
Well-known member
Harry Truman and who else?
cawacko
Well-known member
No. Truman was our last President without a college education. You said there were two.
cawacko
Well-known member
You saying Harvard doesn't educate? Sorry Barack, find another school pal.
uscitizen
Villified User
Depends on how much education you go after. You can come out well educated or just somewhat educated, with a degree in both cases.
Esp if you are in a Frat and rich scion.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well it was just a random thing in a list of proposals, Damo. You don't like it and thats clear and I doubt pages of arguing is going to choose either of our mind.
You prefer proportional? What kind of proportinal, LOL.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well I don't really agree with that logic. Minorities still aren't ever going to win and the house can't be reasonably expected to be increased to a size where you can just walk over to your reps house and have a nice chat with them.
Having to campaign to 547,000 people instead is still going to make it impossible for an average joe without huge party support, and it would meet or surpass the current level within like a decade or so.
The house could be set to population if it were a non-deliberative house. Which would also have other advantages (non-deliberative houses won't as often fall into a hive-mind state that we so often see in modern legislatures, where outrageous proposals are pass nearly unanimously). But that would be a big reform.
The electoral college was put into place because of fears that later proved to be unfounded. I believe if the founders had the benefit of forsight they would not have put the system in place. They probably would've either chosen election by congress or direct election. And since direct election is the only proposal that would be reasonably accepted today, I go with that one.
That would have the same winner-take-all problemsand distortions that the current system has. The winner-take-all effect probably has a greater effect on the votes than the fact that the vote is slightly weighted towards smaller states.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I think we should just abolish the position of VP, personally. Its pretty pointless. The pres should appoint a direct sucessor who could be in his cabinet and he should make this known before election. But it shouldn't be an official, salary drawing position.
Appoint the opposition VP just wouldn't make much sense - if the president died 30 days after a landslide election, the person who America didn't vote fore would suddenly become pres. If the VP were given some other roles that balanced out the executive and if he wasn't directly in the line of succession, it would make slightly more sense.
Then again, he'd probably use his role just to obstruct governance.