4 ms·

Senator Sanders is America's best bet.

by kevmo 8y ago

geggam 8y ago
No standing politician can cure our existing politics
- Sabinus 8y ago
  Why?
- lxmorj 8y ago
  What is asserted without evidence...
  - geggam 8y ago
    The fact they are part of the problem existing today is only logical. They are there and we have problems.
    - bigbluedots 8y ago
      Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today.
      - Rescis 8y ago
        > Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today. Senators are a very integral and powerful part of our current government, and have a far larger per pound effect than food on the politcal environment. Your argument seems quite disingenuous.
    - rifung 8y ago
      It's not logical though. The system being broken doesn't mean every single part of the system doesn't work, it merely means the system as a whole is broken.
radicalbyte 8y ago
I have experienced living in the UK (first past the post, you vote for a local rep, gerrymandered districts and all) and The Netherlands (full proportional representation, you vote for your rep from the full list). The result is clear: politics in The Netherlands are a factor less toxic than in the UK. This is because there is actually a chance to choose the party who represent you. They don't? Small parties are still an option. In the end a coalition is created and all of the crazy ideas (muslim ban, communism) are quickly lost in the first round.. So far I've voted for VVD (Republican/Tory), D66 (Democrats/Libdems) and Green (doesn't exist in UK/US; the one party who get results on climate change). So basically full proportional representation would be the best single change you could make in the US and UK systems.
- eru 8y ago
  It would be quite a big change in the rules. And see some of the issues with Israel's parliament for how naive proportional voting can go wrong. (The German / New Zealand mixed-member proportional representation system works reasonably well in practice, but it's somewhat complicated.) For a smaller change to the rules (but still a big impact), consider approval voting or range voting. Range voting works like judging figure skating in the Olympics: every voter can give scores between eg 0 to 100 to the candidates, the candidate with the highest average score wins the district.
  - ClayShentrup 8y ago
    Score Voting is what it's advocates call it nowadays.
- icelancer 8y ago
  We have the Green Party here. Democrats love blaming them for losing elections.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    the reason it is compelling to blame tiny third parties for losing elections is because it can happen. if there a very liberal third party like the greens and their vote percentage is higher than the liberal (democratic) candidate lost by, then they probably kept the dem from winning. usually you don't see third party conservative alternatives. and the small third parties don't get any political power in the us system.

Senator Sanders is America's best bet.

by kevmo 8y ago

Senator Sanders is America's best bet.

geggam 8y ago

No standing politician can cure our existing politics

Sabinus 8y ago
Why?
lxmorj 8y ago
What is asserted without evidence...
- geggam 8y ago
  The fact they are part of the problem existing today is only logical. They are there and we have problems.
  - bigbluedots 8y ago
    Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today.
    - Rescis 8y ago
      > Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today. Senators are a very integral and powerful part of our current government, and have a far larger per pound effect than food on the politcal environment. Your argument seems quite disingenuous.
  - rifung 8y ago
    It's not logical though. The system being broken doesn't mean every single part of the system doesn't work, it merely means the system as a whole is broken.

radicalbyte 8y ago

I have experienced living in the UK (first past the post, you vote for a local rep, gerrymandered districts and all) and The Netherlands (full proportional representation, you vote for your rep from the full list). The result is clear: politics in The Netherlands are a factor less toxic than in the UK. This is because there is actually a chance to choose the party who represent you. They don't? Small parties are still an option. In the end a coalition is created and all of the crazy ideas (muslim ban, communism) are quickly lost in the first round.. So far I've voted for VVD (Republican/Tory), D66 (Democrats/Libdems) and Green (doesn't exist in UK/US; the one party who get results on climate change). So basically full proportional representation would be the best single change you could make in the US and UK systems.

eru 8y ago
It would be quite a big change in the rules. And see some of the issues with Israel's parliament for how naive proportional voting can go wrong. (The German / New Zealand mixed-member proportional representation system works reasonably well in practice, but it's somewhat complicated.) For a smaller change to the rules (but still a big impact), consider approval voting or range voting. Range voting works like judging figure skating in the Olympics: every voter can give scores between eg 0 to 100 to the candidates, the candidate with the highest average score wins the district.
- ClayShentrup 8y ago
  Score Voting is what it's advocates call it nowadays.
icelancer 8y ago
We have the Green Party here. Democrats love blaming them for losing elections.
- Latteland 8y ago
  the reason it is compelling to blame tiny third parties for losing elections is because it can happen. if there a very liberal third party like the greens and their vote percentage is higher than the liberal (democratic) candidate lost by, then they probably kept the dem from winning. usually you don't see third party conservative alternatives. and the small third parties don't get any political power in the us system.