Well, this goes to the heart of the issue. If interests are in general geographically centered, then the way we do things now is the right way. But I'm suggesting that it's the people who agree with <insert favorite minority party> that aren't getting represented. It's a shift from geographic to ideologic representation. There are pros and cons, but I think it's worth discussing.

I just did a little research. In Germany, for the Bundstag (I'm guessing that's a little like congress---feel free to jump in here MRiGnS), every voter casts one vote for an individual representing their district, and one vote for a party. Half the members come from geographically oriented votes, and the other half come from proportional representation by party. Seems like a nice compromise.

So I guess if we did something like that here, we would leave the House of Representatives alone, and change the way the Senate is elected. Disregard the states, and just have a proportional national Senate election. There are some difficulties involved here, but it is something to discuss.

The way it works in Ireland (we use single transfer vote proportional representation) is firstly the number of representatives in a district is proportional to the electorate.

Each person votes on the representatives in their district in order of preference. So if there is 10 representatives up for 3 seats then I can give a 1 - 10 preference as to who I would like to have in those seats.

Based on the number of people who turn out to vote in that district a figure is set by which a representative is deemed elected. So if for example that figure was set at 6,000 then any representative who reached that figure on first count will be deemed elected. It is usually only one or two representatives who pass the post at first count. Now assuming they actually got 7,000 votes then the extra 1,000 votes are considered surplus and at second count that surplus is checked for the second preference and those votes are added to the first count of those representatives who didn't reach 6,000 first time.

During the series of counts any representatives without enough votes to pass regardless of surplus are eliminated and the next preference on their ballot sheets are also added to the mix.

Surprisingly although a lot of surplus votes are passed to fellow party members not all of them are. This system allows for a fair proportion of small party and independent representatives to be elected. Also these small parties and independents end up with a lot of power.

It is very rare with this system that one of the larger parties will reach a simple majority so they usually do a deal with the small parties and independents to form a stable government. Therefore the rights of the minorities are usually very well represented in government.

Mary

Things that are important to people living in Nebraska probably aren't important to people living in Los Angeles and New York City, but you're probably talking about roughly the same amount of people.

Even if you do go to an idealogic system, it'll still be geographic, except this time the only people represented will be those who live in dense urban areas - big cities.




That's their own fault - it's because they support some whackjob nutburger that has zero chance of winning anything and will never have any power. I'll hand it to Ron Paul - he did the prudent thing. Rather than waste his time and money running as a libertarian, he is trying to influence the Republican parth. That's the smart, sensible way to do it.

But I'll play along. The Constitution Party recieved 0.1% of the votes last time, which got them absolutely nothing at all, what will that get them under your proposed system?

I guess I don't understand what the cons are to the current system. What are they again?

Yup, this is how it works, the second vote is given to a party, and the parties have lists for the state the district belongs to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._stimmzett.jpg

on the left are the candidates for the disctrict (city of Würzburg), on the right the Parties and the first five candidates on the list for the state of bavaria are written below their party.

I don't agree with that at all. Why is it that you think only people in big cities will get representation?
I agree with that. Given the system that we have, that's the practical, useful approach. But that doesn't mean the system is right.

Probably nothing for 0.1%. But 1) the Constitution Party is small, even for a fringe party and 2) if there was proportional representation, I think more people would vote for parties other than R or D. I know I would be much more likely to.
Really just one: There are only two parties. If you don't quite line up with either of them, then you have absolutely no chance of your ideas being represented. I think that's bad. Don't you?

Well, in the U.S. , the actual system of majority makes sense, BUT take into factors of rigged voting, cornering the party system, among others and it's more of a D or R over majority. The way it stands, we have a right for MANY different parties to try their hand, the problem, D&R rule and it's a wall that will likely never be broken. Even if the majority ruled, rest assured it would be fixed against another party, you would see both D&R getting along quite nicely in this situation to thwart another party. Plus another party wouldn't have even near the funding to fight a political battle. Nor do they have enough backing\votes for presidential running.

So there we do have a majority rule in a different view prior to actual rule. The problem is, I think all parties should have equal opportunity but doubt it will happen. Just as MS corners the market, D&R corner the political system. Of course I do see a minority rule problem as well and for an example,
when some moron goes and and say for eg...only.... burns themselves with coffee, suddenly a law is passed where no one may drink coffee or anything hot. This is what happens in the judicial system with minority so perhaps having majority rule isn't such a bad thing. My example isn't too far off from truth either. This crap happens all the time giving laws to all of us for some doof who has the common sense of a weed. So majority rule isn't in place for common folk it seems, only in higher political rankings.

I will say this as well, with voting, every time a law is passed, I haven't in almost my 40 years of being on this earth, gotten asked to vote on a law that I know of. All it takes is one person or a group of wealthy do-gooders to want something done and tis done. Where is majority rule? Majority rule is a fading fact and I do believe our voting system is defunct and the decisions are made without our votes counting. I also believe we are only given the right to vote as one would give a child a play hammer to make them feel they are doing something as important as daddy fixing something with a real one. In other words, we still get to vote to satisfy the American people, to make them think we still have a say, other than that, I think it's much a farce.

But that is the system and the only one we have currently and majority rules but should be applied to any law, decision, or anything for that matter. We have a society that thinks living with billions of people, every law should suit one's personal well-being and we can't have that, this is what throws us into communistic states of living. So anyway, majority should be and should apply far below the political hierarchy as well, but doesn't. Yeah, majority should rule, more so in our judicial and law making system.

EDIT: Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You think Chavez is a good dictator? Are you legally retarded?

I was asking him if HE thought he was since he is a socialist type dictator and mrgns is a communist. And any leader that the US denounces so vehemently in the media.. i tend to suspect the opposite of what is told is true. In fact the US leads propaganda against Chavez. Personally I have not researched the matter much but I believe.. even though he is socialistic.. that he does have his countries best interests at heart whereas George bush and virtually every leader of every other nation is corrupt.

The War On Democracy by John Pilger

Surely it's an elected minority making the decisions? They represent the majority of those who voted but make their decisions as a minority. They are not constantly accountable to those who elected them so in no sense are they acting out the will of the majority day-to-day. The minority rule, on behalf of the majority. That's why it's called representative democracy. At least that's how it works in Europe...

Your bias is showing again: you like Chavez because he denounces Bush. It comes as no surprise that you don't actually know anything about the Chavez government, however.

Here's one for you:

Chavez Seeks New Constitution to Abolish Term Limits - Bloomberg.com

In other words, Chavez is modifying the Venezuelan constitution so that he can remain President for life. Please, please try to convince me that isn't the definition of a dictatorship.

Oh, nice video, by the way. You conspiracy theorists post a lot of those.

On topic, democracy is one of, if not the, worst forms of government. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That's why America is not a democracy, although an enormous number of people falsely believe it is.

There are exceptions to everything, remember. North Korea is certainly not a democracy, yet I don't think everything is fine and dandy in that country.

I'm not sure there's even a translation for "human rights" in Korean.

I don't mean to imply that it would be swell in North Korea. Socialist dictatorships are obviously terrible for those unfortunate enough to live under one.

I think our constitutional republic would be great, if we actually adhered to the Constitution. By ignoring the restraints placed on government in our Constitution, we are working against our own self interest.

I was just trying to point out that democracy isn't good, the majority has no inherent right to rule, and the U.S. is not a democracy.

A lady asked Benjamin Franklin, 'Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?' 'A republic,' he replied 'if you can keep it.'

I never said i wasn't biased. I am biased against whatever the media says due to their track record and history.


Thats an assumption. Just because I don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean i don't know just as much or a bit more than the average american.

Already knew that one.


I never said he wasn't a dictator did i?

And brainwashed people like you make it pointless to point such videos because of your lack at looking things from a different perspective than your own etc...

Now come on, you must realise that if it was a dictatorship there wouldn't be elections... What he did was propose that the rules permit candidates to stand repeatedly. Whatever you might think of that, the people who voted it through were themselves elected and continue to be so. Chavez could just as easily be thrown out.

One of the reasons he remains so popular is because, with a right-wing media group backed by the CIA (and they publicised their own involvement) a coup was attempted which failed because of a general strike in support of him.

You might not like his politics, but he was elected and remains so. Opposing the fact of his leadership is very similar to the opposition to Hamas when the Palestinians, responding to the US calls to carry out elections (which US monitors judged to be fair), elected the very group the US wanted out.

Sometimes democracy just insists on representing the will of the people

This was a very good explanation Mary. Unfortunately many probably still won't grasp how it works. Australia uses a distribution of preferences system too, but I believe the vast majority of people do not understand how it works

From some of your previous posts, I strongly dispute the veracity of that statement.

No, you didn't. However, you did ask MRiGnS if Chavez was a good dictator. Potato, Po-tah-to.

And in your spare time, you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Frankly, you telling me I'm the "brainwashed" one only makes me further supportive of my own political stances. If you'd like to show how my alleged brainwashing is anything more than your opinion, feel free to do so.

Chavez prays on lack of education among the lowest, poorest classes of his citizenry. Chavez does, admittedly, give a lot of money to the poor and try to improve their quality of life. That is how he manages to get their votes: they know of nothing better, and are unaware of the dictatorship they are gradually voting themselves into.

He has shut down dissenting television stations in Venezuela. If there are no controversies surrounding him within Venezuela, then his populace are unaware of what is truly happening. Again, that lack of education/intelligence amongst the poor is what inhibits them from realising it themselves.

Anybody ever noticed the ways in which Chavez came to power bear somewhat of a resemblance to the ways in which Hitler came to power? Both attempted a coup, were arrested and later pardoned, and then rose to power through official means. Hitler was voted in too, yet that is hardly an excuse for the atrocities of WW2.

And, one last thing: who has been to Venezuela? I have a feeling I may be the one of the very few people (if not the only one) in this discussion who has been to Venezuela.

Very true

A lot of people in Ireland don't understand how it works either.

He was appointed, actually, by Hindenburg. NSDAP polled ~40% the election after the Enabling Act, which is the closest the bastard ever got to an election.Here's another parallel: The Nazi party bought a lot support with a liberal application of social welfare-type programs, which I imagine appealed to the 30% of the population who were unemployed at the time.