5 ms·

Interesting article on extremely important topic. TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

by ablekh 7y ago

pmart123 7y ago
I often have thought that if we did switch to a popular vote over the electoral college, there would be an unpredictable turnout on both sides. My feeling is the Republican turnout in states like CA, NY and IL would increase. It’s hard for me to make judgements on small, republican dominated states having never lived in one, but I’m sure there would be a similar effect.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Totally agree. There should be at least some level of proportional representation, maybe a certain percentage of seats in the House. It's still hard to believe that in the 90s Ross Perot got 20% of the votes but this resulted in zero representation. No wonder people think that their votes don't matter. If you vote Republican in California it's pretty much a waste too. Personally I vote third party out of principle because I don't want to be forced to pick between two more or less corrupt choices. But in the current system it's almost hopeless to ever have a viable third party. I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    I don’t understand your example. Ross Perot was running for president without a party. How were house seats supposed to be awarded to him? It’s a totally different election, and multiple seats can’t be held by one person.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      You are right. However the point I tried to make is that the current system kills third parties. Let’s say you get 30% in every district but win none you will have no representation. That’s just unhealthy.
      - thu2111 7y ago
        PR at first sounds like a great idea. I used to support it. Watching how it plays out in Europe is instructive. What you see in PR systems is many parties, all of whom enter Parliament and none of whom have a majority. This leads to: - Long delays whilst they try to form alliances with each other, often unsuccessfully. Belgium went without a government for 541 days. Having no government for three-six months is quite common. - Alliances that make no sense at all and make a mockery of the parties political manifestos, e.g. right wing and left wing parties forming an alliance then not being able to actually do anything because they fundamentally don't agree on much. Germany used to have one of these. Then they attempted to form an alliance between the Greens (hard left socialists) and their libertarian party! As you can imagine, that didn't last long. - A very similar issue is that parties can win a lot of votes and still get no influence, because the other parties hate them so much they refuse to ever form an alliance with them. This happens to conservative parties a lot. For instance in the Netherlands the PVV is the second biggest party by vote share, but every other party refused to enter an alliance with them so their voters have no influence on the government. The alliance required to achieve this took 208 days to put together and 225 to formally start work in the cabinet, so the Dutch people were without representation for more than half a year because their politicians refused to contemplate compromising with the second largest party. [Modified] first past the post as used by the USA and the UK isn't perfect, but it results in elections having a clear winner who can then (mostly) implement what they said they would implement. In PR countries end up being ruled by what are effectively new political parties which didn't actually exist when voters went to the ballot boxes, may have policies that were never discussed during the election and which may still exclude the preferences of large chunks of the voters, including even the largest chunk.
  - schoen 7y ago
    > I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power. It's also possible that that might happen without the intentionality or explicit coordination part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law For example, the successful third party might supplant the role of one of the existing major parties, marginalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States
- lenkite 7y ago
  Popular vote is fine as long as there is strict voter id enforced.
ksec 7y ago
>TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard! What if none of the candidate represent your voice?
- ablekh 7y ago
  In some elections (at least, in the United States), there is write-in option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate). If one feels that it makes no sense or difference, then, I guess, not voting is a feasible option. They also might consider running for a public office themselves.
- Natales 7y ago
  I often think about that when I'm waiting for my meal in a plane, seating in row 33 or higher. Odds are my choice won't be available when they finally get to me. I can choose not to eat, but it's more likely I will end up choosing from what's available. In essence: educate yourself, and choose what you believe would would be the least worst for the country as a whole.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    What if you were allergic to peanuts, and only stuff fried in peanut oil was available?
    - riahi 7y ago
      As a fun fact, peanut oil is so highly processed that most people with peanut allergy can eat it. https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanut-oil-cause-allergic-reactions https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanu...
      - mirimir 7y ago
        I watched someone almost die from eating Chinese food fried in peanut oil. Maybe some peanut oil is pure enough, but there's no guarantee. The link is pretty clear about that, but your paraphrase is dangerous misinformation.

Interesting article on extremely important topic. TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

by ablekh 7y ago

Interesting article on extremely important topic. TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

I often have thought that if we did switch to a popular vote over the electoral college, there would be an unpredictable turnout on both sides. My feeling is the Republican turnout in states like CA, NY and IL would increase. It’s hard for me to make judgements on small, republican dominated states having never lived in one, but I’m sure there would be a similar effect.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Totally agree. There should be at least some level of proportional representation, maybe a certain percentage of seats in the House. It's still hard to believe that in the 90s Ross Perot got 20% of the votes but this resulted in zero representation. No wonder people think that their votes don't matter. If you vote Republican in California it's pretty much a waste too. Personally I vote third party out of principle because I don't want to be forced to pick between two more or less corrupt choices. But in the current system it's almost hopeless to ever have a viable third party. I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power.
- true_religion 7y ago
  I don’t understand your example. Ross Perot was running for president without a party. How were house seats supposed to be awarded to him? It’s a totally different election, and multiple seats can’t be held by one person.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    You are right. However the point I tried to make is that the current system kills third parties. Let’s say you get 30% in every district but win none you will have no representation. That’s just unhealthy.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      PR at first sounds like a great idea. I used to support it. Watching how it plays out in Europe is instructive. What you see in PR systems is many parties, all of whom enter Parliament and none of whom have a majority. This leads to: - Long delays whilst they try to form alliances with each other, often unsuccessfully. Belgium went without a government for 541 days. Having no government for three-six months is quite common. - Alliances that make no sense at all and make a mockery of the parties political manifestos, e.g. right wing and left wing parties forming an alliance then not being able to actually do anything because they fundamentally don't agree on much. Germany used to have one of these. Then they attempted to form an alliance between the Greens (hard left socialists) and their libertarian party! As you can imagine, that didn't last long. - A very similar issue is that parties can win a lot of votes and still get no influence, because the other parties hate them so much they refuse to ever form an alliance with them. This happens to conservative parties a lot. For instance in the Netherlands the PVV is the second biggest party by vote share, but every other party refused to enter an alliance with them so their voters have no influence on the government. The alliance required to achieve this took 208 days to put together and 225 to formally start work in the cabinet, so the Dutch people were without representation for more than half a year because their politicians refused to contemplate compromising with the second largest party. [Modified] first past the post as used by the USA and the UK isn't perfect, but it results in elections having a clear winner who can then (mostly) implement what they said they would implement. In PR countries end up being ruled by what are effectively new political parties which didn't actually exist when voters went to the ballot boxes, may have policies that were never discussed during the election and which may still exclude the preferences of large chunks of the voters, including even the largest chunk.
- schoen 7y ago
  > I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power. It's also possible that that might happen without the intentionality or explicit coordination part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law For example, the successful third party might supplant the role of one of the existing major parties, marginalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States
lenkite 7y ago
Popular vote is fine as long as there is strict voter id enforced.

ksec 7y ago

>TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard! What if none of the candidate represent your voice?

ablekh 7y ago
In some elections (at least, in the United States), there is write-in option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate). If one feels that it makes no sense or difference, then, I guess, not voting is a feasible option. They also might consider running for a public office themselves.
Natales 7y ago
I often think about that when I'm waiting for my meal in a plane, seating in row 33 or higher. Odds are my choice won't be available when they finally get to me. I can choose not to eat, but it's more likely I will end up choosing from what's available. In essence: educate yourself, and choose what you believe would would be the least worst for the country as a whole.
- mirimir 7y ago
  What if you were allergic to peanuts, and only stuff fried in peanut oil was available?
  - riahi 7y ago
    As a fun fact, peanut oil is so highly processed that most people with peanut allergy can eat it. https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanut-oil-cause-allergic-reactions https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanu...
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I watched someone almost die from eating Chinese food fried in peanut oil. Maybe some peanut oil is pure enough, but there's no guarantee. The link is pretty clear about that, but your paraphrase is dangerous misinformation.