NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, we are in the political season once again, And I find it amazing that quite a few of my fellow NS'ers have to wiegh in while not living under American law. I hate to tell you this, but your opinions concerning Kerry or Bush, do NOT actually apply to me unless you live here, and then only on a limited basis.

I live here.

Vote for Kerry.

I live here.

Vote for Badnarik.

I live here.

Vote for Badnarik.


No, No..cast a real vote.

No, No..cast a real vote.

I'm in a state that will probably go to Kerry. At that rate, I might as well vote third party.

No, No..cast a real vote.

The only "real" vote is a sincere one.

The only "real" vote is a sincere one.

I used to think like that.
I even voted for Nader, in the last election.

Look at what happened.

I'm in a state that will probably go to Kerry. At that rate, I might as well vote third party.

I hear ya, that's why I'm going for Nader.

I live here.

Vote for Kerry.

Why, sir/ma'am should anyone vote for either one? The two party system has its limits (I.E. Two parties,) yet all "third party" candidates were and are doomed to failure.

I have never seen a real Multi-party system: You have either a dictatorship, a one party system, or a two party system. There is no system, by which any member of a society may be elected to lead. Not even Anarchy can acheive this.

Yes, we are in the political season once again, And I find it amazing that quite a few of my fellow NS'ers have to wiegh in while not living under American law. I hate to tell you this, but your opinions concerning Kerry or Bush, do NOT actually apply to me unless you live here, and then only on a limited basis.

What you don't realise is that the foreign policy of your presidential candidates affect us. We voice our opinions because the decisions you make will impact our lives.

I used to think like that.
I even voted for Nader, in the last election.

Look at what happened.

Nothing that wouldn't have happened if you voted some other way.

As an aside, I know what you mean. We SHOULD be using an instant-runoff majority vote instead of a pluality vote. No one wins with plurality.

American for Bush-Cheney '04

Why, sir/ma'am should anyone vote for either one? The two party system has its limits (I.E. Two parties,) yet all "third party" candidates were and are doomed to failure.

I have never seen a real Multi-party system: You have either a dictatorship, a one party system, or a two party system. There is no system, by which any member of a society may be elected to lead. Not even Anarchy can acheive this.

France has a four-party system.

What you don't realise is that the foreign policy of your presidential candidates affect us. We voice our opinions because the decisions you make will impact our lives.

Agreed. We either bomb, or help your *RL* nation. See my above post.

Why, sir/ma'am should anyone vote for either one? The two party system has its limits (I.E. Two parties,) yet all "third party" candidates were and are doomed to failure.

I have never seen a real Multi-party system: You have either a dictatorship, a one party system, or a two party system. There is no system, by which any member of a society may be elected to lead. Not even Anarchy can acheive this.


Its Sir, and you can call me Squatch.
Why one or the other?

Well..I agree with you fully about the evils of a two party system, I do.
But Look at the last time around...2000.

Are you better off, is the world better off than it was four years ago?
Do you think it will change for the better if Bush gets back in?
No.
In fact, it could get worse.

Kerry may not be leaps and bounds better than the schmuck we have now, but we have a better chance at things turning arounf under him than Dubya.

France has a four-party system.

Describe the four parties please.

*No flaming against France, the french or their views, please*

JIM

Nothing that wouldn't have happened if you voted some other way.

As an aside, I know what you mean. We SHOULD be using an instant-runoff majority vote instead of a pluality vote. No one wins with plurality.


Well..in this literal case, your right, My state would have voted democratic either way.
But what about Florida?
If less people felt that way we would be talking about President Gore, right now.

545 votes as I recall.

course, we probably should be talking about President gore now, anyway, but I digress.

Describe the four parties please.

*No flaming against France, the french or their views, please*

JIM

1. Gaullists. The re-establishment of the republic party.
2. Democratic-republicans.
3. Socialists.
4. Communists.

In addion, there are several other lesser parties with a degree of power. The Green party has some sway in legislation, and...

shoot. I can't remember the name, but there's a nationalist-extremeist party which is more powerful than the other parties give it credit for. In 1988 France tried out proportional-representation. The NE party got a large part of the National Assembly, and the nation has pretty much vowed to never use PR again. Why? It takes power away from the primary parties.

Well..in this literal case, your right, My state would have voted democratic either way.
But what about Florida?
If less people felt that way we would be talking about President Gore, right now.

545 votes as I recall.

course, we probably should be talking about President gore now, anyway, but I digress.

It will always just come down to the Electoral Collage. Our last two or three presidents were elected with less than 50% of the vote. In my opinion, you accomplish one thing with voting: you put your name and support behind your representitive. You're saying "Bush, I vote for you, and I trust you to represent me and my interests in national politics."

If you're saying "Kerry, just beat Bush", I do feel you're defeating the purpose of voting. A lot of it is our political system. If we lived in a complete democracy, that changes a bit. If we use a better voting system, it changes a whole lot. But you're vote in America, because of the electoral college and bullsh#t like Florida, your vote is worth less than nothing politically. All that matters is who you support.

*cringes and waits for the flames*

Its Sir, and you can call me Squatch.
Why one or the other?

Well..I agree with you fully about the evils of a two party system, I do.
But Look at the last time around...2000.

Are you better off, is the world better off than it was four years ago?
Do you think it will change for the better if Bush gets back in?
No.
In fact, it could get worse.

Kerry may not be leaps and bounds better than the schmuck we have now, but we have a better chance at things turning arounf under him than Dubya.

Yes we are better off than we were four years ago: I make more money *WooHoo!* than I did.

Bush or Kerry the next four: Nothing would change; we would still be at war with a nation we never needed to support, or now be at war with. We should have done the job right the first time.

What do we gain, in Iraq? Oil. Oh, we do use it to pay for rebuilding Iraq, and we get to cloak it in the overall anti-terror war.

In holland there are 7
Democrats
Liberals
Socialists (2, one more centrist than the other)
Pragmatists
Greens
Right wing
& some small parties with almost no votes (Extreme right, orthodox chistians etc)

The NE party got a large part of the National Assembly, and the nation has pretty much vowed to never use PR again. Why? It takes power away from the primary parties.

Again, Explain

Again, Expain

Sure. How much do you know about PR?

Sure. How much do you know about PR?

PR?

PR?

Don't worry about it, I'll try to start from the beginning. Gimmie a minute.

I have never seen a real Multi-party system: You have either a dictatorship, a one party system, or a two party system. There is no system, by which any member of a society may be elected to lead. Not even Anarchy can acheive this.
Are you mental? If you have never seen a multi party system then you have clearly never left the narrow minded confines of the USA.

PR, or proportional representation, is a system used for multipule parties competing for multiple chairs. So it wouldn’t work very well for a presidential election. Here’s PR:

In a plurality vote, like in America, you have several candidates running for one position. With 51% of the vote, a party can receive 100% of the seats, and therefore nearly 100% of the political power available.

With PR, several candidates compete for several chairs at once. If a party gets 51% of the vote, they should get about 51% of the seats. A minor party with 20% of the vote should get 20% of the seats.

So let’s say the US Senate is about to be re-organized. With a plurality vote system, each representative got elected in a separate election with 51% or more of the vote. What if the republicans won each state’s election with 60% of the vote? Then the republicans (60% of the population) get 100% of the power. That’s not fair, is it?

With PR, the results are more proportional. Everyone in the nation votes at one time for the senate’s members. If the democrats win 40% of the vote, they get 40% of the seats. If a minor party, like the Greens, squeeze out 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of representation instead of nothing at all. This is the concept.

Pros:
-Every party gets a sincere chance at representation
-Sincere voting is encouraged, because your party will very likely benefit from your vote.
-The government represents the people’s political stance, rather than 50% of it or so.
-No one party will ever realistically have total dominance over the government.

Cons:
-Extremist parties can worm their way into government.
-The government may find itself in lockdown. Where there was once a single party directing the country, you now have two roughly equally powerful parties squabbling at every meeting.
-The common voter may find the process confusing.


That’s the overview for now. I’m going to give five minutes for flames and/or posts, then I’ll move on to France.

Don't worry about it, I'll try to start from the beginning. Gimmie a minute.

Well I need to sleep, and someone from madison WI soulddn't be trying to teach me the French veiws anyway.

*smile*

Well I need to sleep, and someone from madison WI soulddn't be trying to teach me the French veiws anyway.

*smile*

I'm fine with that. Do you want to save this for another time? Never counts as another time, too.




Does it help that I'm graduated with a minor in political science? :p

There is no system, by which any member of a society may be elected to lead. Not even Anarchy can acheive this.

that has to do with the nature of elections. elections automatically favor the rich and powerful and/or famous. there is no way around this if you use a system of electing people to 'represent' you. this can sometimes be slightly limited by eliminating voting for people directly and individually, and just voting for parties. but even then you will have elections determined a lot by who has the best funding and the highest profile in the media, and often who has the most well-known leaders.

though i would argue that most of the thought out forms of anarchism do a fairly good job of avoiding this by changing the nature of delegated positions and authority.

shoot. I can't remember the name, but there's a nationalist-extremeist party which is more powerful than the other parties give it credit for. In 1988 France tried out proportional-representation. The NE party got a large part of the National Assembly, and the nation has pretty much vowed to never use PR again. Why? It takes power away from the primary parties.

Don't know what their name is in French, but in Britain the party of LePen is called the French National Front, and are a rather nasty party, who the ignorant would call Nazis (using hte modern common meaning, not the true political meaning).

LePen came second in the presidential election.

Canada has a four party system, as well.

Don't know what their name is in French, but in Britain the party of LePen is called the French National Front, and are a rather nasty party, who the ignorant would call Nazis (using hte modern common meaning, not the true political meaning).

LePen came second in the presidential election.

Thank you! Yes! The National Front! I know about that election, too.

"Vote for a crook, not a facist" - Gaulist campaign sloagan, President Chriac is it?

Many countries successfully operate multi-party systems, indeed this is the norm in Europe. The majority of these countries however use a system of proportional representation, which I do not believe is appropriate to the US model of government.

Two notable exceptions to this are Britain and France. These countries operate a two party system, but have more than two parties. It is in these two countries that we can find potential solutions to the American problem of third parties.

In France the presidential election is determined by a system known as ‘second ballot’ (SB). The first election is a popular vote over the country, and whoever wants to stand can do so. From this election, the top candidates go through to the second ballot, and the people then vote again. As the smaller parties are then removed from the second ballot, as they did not get enough votes the first time round, they do not affect the outcome of the election.

Britain is currently considering a form of AVS (the peculiar British version being named AV+, which is in my opinion inferior to a pure AVS). Using AVS voters number their choices of candidates, rather than only voting for a single candidate. A relatively complicated mechanism of eliminating the weaker candidates (similar but simpler to that used in STV) is used so that one candidate can then be elected.

Pros for SB:
Fits well with the American system
Eliminates the threat of smaller third parties messing up the election
Allows voters to cast both a sincere vote and a realistic vote

Cons for SB:
Has failed in the past, see the last French election for example

Pros for AVS:
Fits well with the American system
Eliminates the threat of smaller third parties messing up the election
Allows voters to cast a sincere vote without ‘wasting’ their vote

Cons for AVS:
Relatively complicated; after last election, would Floridians cope with more complications?

You may also like to read my thread: “Why I like the Electoral College”, which includes in greater depth the reforms I would like to see made to the US presidential election, you can find it here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343987

Well I think having a two party system or even a one party system is prefrable to not having any parties at all. (parties with influence) Think of Iraq
the system they have is proportional anialation where each group with interest in governing(outside coalition control) rescieves lead bullets from Uncle Sam as a percentage of support they have from the population. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: with regards from George W Bush who wants a world free from terror. Infact he has been working on a new 'freedom' during his time in office, the freedom to attack other peoples
without any legal or moral restrictions.

PR, or proportional representation, is a system used for multipule parties competing for multiple chairs. So it wouldn’t work very well for a presidential election. Here’s PR:

In a plurality vote, like in America, you have several candidates running for one position. With 51% of the vote, a party can receive 100% of the seats, and therefore nearly 100% of the political power available.

With PR, several candidates compete for several chairs at once. If a party gets 51% of the vote, they should get about 51% of the seats. A minor party with 20% of the vote should get 20% of the seats.

So let’s say the US Senate is about to be re-organized. With a plurality vote system, each representative got elected in a separate election with 51% or more of the vote. What if the republicans won each state’s election with 60% of the vote? Then the republicans (60% of the population) get 100% of the power. That’s not fair, is it?

With PR, the results are more proportional. Everyone in the nation votes at one time for the senate’s members. If the democrats win 40% of the vote, they get 40% of the seats. If a minor party, like the Greens, squeeze out 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of representation instead of nothing at all. This is the concept.

Pros:
-Every party gets a sincere chance at representation
-Sincere voting is encouraged, because your party will very likely benefit from your vote.
-The government represents the people’s political stance, rather than 50% of it or so.
-No one party will ever realistically have total dominance over the government.

Cons:
-Extremist parties can worm their way into government.
-The government may find itself in lockdown. Where there was once a single party directing the country, you now have two roughly equally powerful parties squabbling at every meeting.
-The common voter may find the process confusing.


That’s the overview for now. I’m going to give five minutes for flames and/or posts, then I’ll move on to France.



Good job of explaining PR, however, your analysis fails to reflect an intended nature of the Electoral College in the US (and, frankly, on a purpose of the Senate, as well). Under PR, large states, such as California, New York, or Texas, could overwhelm an election (after all, Gore handily won California, which contributed a large portion of his popular vote). The Electoral College, whether you agree with it or not, was designed to protect the interests of the smaller states, as is the case in the Senate.

Interestingly, though, with the Electoral College, the 2000 pesidential election turned on only 500+ votes, which was the victory margin in Florida. The election was so close that the candidate that won Florida, won the Electoral College, and hence, the presidency. On the other hand, races in other states were close, as well, especially in Wisconsin and New Mexico (as iIrecall). Nader's third party candidacy affected those races, too.

As a Republican (now Democrat, for reasons unrelated to W), I voted for Gore, but cannot overlook the fact that he did not carry his own state (Tennessee) in that presidential election.

Lastly, I was reading a thread about Australian politics, as several of my friends (Americans) work in Oz. In Australia ("Oz"), voting is compulsary and there is a significant debate as to the merits of mandatory voting. On the other hand, in the States, electorial turnout hovers at a little over 30% of eligible voters. Yet, unbelievably, people here feel free to bitch about our state of affairs; most of whom, have not voted. While compulsary elections may not be the answer, perhaps making it easier to vote (such as mandatory election day holiday) might be helpful.

Any thoughts?

Good job of explaining PR, however, your analysis fails to reflect an intended nature of the Electoral College in the US (and, frankly, on a purpose of the Senate, as well). Under PR, large states, such as California, New York, or Texas, could overwhelm an election (after all, Gore handily won California, which contributed a large portion of his popular vote). The Electoral College, whether you agree with it or not, was designed to protect the interests of the smaller states, as is the case in the Senate.

Interestingly, though, with the Electoral College, the 2000 pesidential election turned on only 500+ votes, which was the victory margin in Florida. The election was so close that the candidate that won Florida, won the Electoral College, and hence, the presidency. On the other hand, races in other states were close, as well, especially in Wisconsin and New Mexico (as iIrecall). Nader's third party candidacy affected those races, too.

As a Republican (now Democrat, for reasons unrelated to W), I voted for Gore, but cannot overlook the fact that he did not carry his own state (Tennessee) in that presidential election.

Lastly, I was reading a thread about Australian politics, as several of my friends (Americans) work in Oz. In Australia ("Oz"), voting is compulsary and there is a significant debate as to the merits of mandatory voting. On the other hand, in the States, electorial turnout hovers at a little over 30% of eligible voters. Yet, unbelievably, people here feel free to bitch about our state of affairs; most of whom, have not voted. While compulsary elections may not be the answer, perhaps making it easier to vote (such as mandatory election day holiday) might be helpful.

Any thoughts?

You're entirely correct. I was a bit harsh on the electoral collage. I was really posting that as it related to individual votes. I know it has its uses. I just feel that it takes power away from the common voter. That's all.

I chose "Senate" fairly randomly. Any large political group would have done.