3 ms·

In the US. the President is voted upon separately, and often is the opposite of the party that runs the House of Reps. Party footprint in the House has little

by fcsuper 10y ago

In the US. the President is voted upon separately, and often is the opposite of the party that runs the House of Reps. Party footprint in the House has little baring which party in the White House.

Pxtl 10y ago
Yes, but my point is that in the USA you see reps acting against the stated plans of their party - as I mentioned before: when the blue dog democrats opposed their de-facto leader Obama on national healthcare? That does not happen here in Canada. The party whip rules with an iron fist - votes where it is safe for party members to vote their conscience or directly constituents are the exception, not the rule. And my opinion is that a big reason for this is that individual representatives are basically anonymous here in Canada. They're too small to get any media coverage. The only time an MP or MP candidate makes the news is if they have a Cabinet position or if they make an apocalyptic gaffe. Debates, policy, etc. are ignored below the leadership.
- fcsuper 10y ago
  Ah, due to the two party system that has a stranglehold on the US system and the nature of our primary system, there are A LOT of unaffiliated independent voters. There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. There would be no party whips to whip. There might not even be enough representatives of the major parties to even form a collation, at least in the start.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. No, there wouldn't. The electoral forces that drive duopoly operate the same almost independently of district size, changing the number of single-member House districts with first-past-the-post elections won't reduce duopoly. Changing the electoral method might (and doesn't require changing the number of districts.)
    - fcsuper 10y ago
      I don't agree with this premise. From what I learned about redistricting when I was a candidate for California's citizen redistricting board (which almost completely eliminated gerrymandering in CA because legislature no longer has authority to define districts), under-representation is a big issue. From my impression, Republican and Democratic party bases are much smaller than everyone thinks. Neither of them would be in control of a drastically increased body without a collation with many many other groups. Also, many laws are currently in place that prevent third parties from participating in the primary system on equal footing with Dems and Rep. If those limitations where removed, that by itself would see an erosion of Dem and Rep party affiliation. The hold that Dems and Reps have on US politics is much more tenuous than they'd like everyone to believe.

by fcsuper 10y ago

In the US. the President is voted upon separately, and often is the opposite of the party that runs the House of Reps. Party footprint in the House has little baring which party in the White House.

Pxtl 10y ago

Yes, but my point is that in the USA you see reps acting against the stated plans of their party - as I mentioned before: when the blue dog democrats opposed their de-facto leader Obama on national healthcare? That does not happen here in Canada. The party whip rules with an iron fist - votes where it is safe for party members to vote their conscience or directly constituents are the exception, not the rule. And my opinion is that a big reason for this is that individual representatives are basically anonymous here in Canada. They're too small to get any media coverage. The only time an MP or MP candidate makes the news is if they have a Cabinet position or if they make an apocalyptic gaffe. Debates, policy, etc. are ignored below the leadership.

fcsuper 10y ago
Ah, due to the two party system that has a stranglehold on the US system and the nature of our primary system, there are A LOT of unaffiliated independent voters. There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. There would be no party whips to whip. There might not even be enough representatives of the major parties to even form a collation, at least in the start.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. No, there wouldn't. The electoral forces that drive duopoly operate the same almost independently of district size, changing the number of single-member House districts with first-past-the-post elections won't reduce duopoly. Changing the electoral method might (and doesn't require changing the number of districts.)
  - fcsuper 10y ago
    I don't agree with this premise. From what I learned about redistricting when I was a candidate for California's citizen redistricting board (which almost completely eliminated gerrymandering in CA because legislature no longer has authority to define districts), under-representation is a big issue. From my impression, Republican and Democratic party bases are much smaller than everyone thinks. Neither of them would be in control of a drastically increased body without a collation with many many other groups. Also, many laws are currently in place that prevent third parties from participating in the primary system on equal footing with Dems and Rep. If those limitations where removed, that by itself would see an erosion of Dem and Rep party affiliation. The hold that Dems and Reps have on US politics is much more tenuous than they'd like everyone to believe.