• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Keep politicians hands off the election process

A.Nonymous said:
Even if applied to just the HR I'm not sure that it would really change things and I'm still not sure how it would be implemented. Let's say there are 5 seats. How exactly does the voting for that work? If you put the candidates 1-5, then those who favor party A are going to list all their candidates first and party B theirs. I'm not sure that the outcome will really be all that different. Most states will likely end up with a 60/40 split or close to it. Would the makeup of Congress at the end of the day be all that different?
Click to expand...
It would be quite different, as there wouldn't be just two parties, or nigh-on single party states.

The single seat House of Representative states would be an issue, but far from a deal breaker.
 
As per the cited article, it's proportional representatives based on the proportion of votes. It may be a means to represent "grey".

"PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single member districts or on bloc voting; these non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and to have a bias in favour of larger political groups. PR systems tend to produce a proliferation of political parties, while single member districts encourage a two-party system.

There are many different forms of proportional representation. Some are focused solely on achieving the proportional representation of different political parties (such as list PR) while others permit the voter to chose between individual candidates (such as PR-STV). The degree of proportionality also varies; it is determined by factors such as the precise formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or in the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election."
 
Well, this might be a nice thought exercise, but we all know such a sweeping change would never actually happen. Americans are typically resistant to large changes. Even letting people go to the doctor when they need to is considered a crazy idea by half of the country.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
As per the cited article, it's proportional representatives based on the proportion of votes. It may be a means to represent "grey".

"PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single member districts or on bloc voting; these non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and to have a bias in favour of larger political groups. PR systems tend to produce a proliferation of political parties, while single member districts encourage a two-party system.

There are many different forms of proportional representation. Some are focused solely on achieving the proportional representation of different political parties (such as list PR) while others permit the voter to chose between individual candidates (such as PR-STV). The degree of proportionality also varies; it is determined by factors such as the precise formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or in the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election."
Click to expand...

The concept I understand. I just wonder how it would actually be instituted.
 
Gmash said:
Well, this might be a nice thought exercise, but we all know such a sweeping change would never actually happen. Americans are typically resistant to large changes. Even letting people go to the doctor when they need to is considered a crazy idea by half of the country.
Click to expand...

It's been used in local elections, MN & IL. The incumbent two-party politicians would likely oppose, so a state referendum would be required.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It's been used in local elections, MN & IL. The incumbent two-party politicians would likely oppose, so a state referendum would be required.
Click to expand...
Thats the problem. I think the Democrats would really haemorage support if PR was brought in, as they would lose a lot of the liberal vote. Unless of course they move towards a more liberal stance, in which case they lose conservatives.
 
I think it would work both ways, all would need to broaden their support, also there would be openings for third parties. Extreme positions would suffer.
 
Clearly I can't communicate. Exactly how do you implement it? First of all, you've got 2 Senate seats. How in the world do you divvy those up proportionally? Let's say you have 5 Congressional seats. Do you vote for them on an at-large basis across the state? I'm not a huge fan of that as the populated areas are going to have a huge influence on the process in that case. I'm also skeptical that it would really make a difference in the overall outcome. We certainly wouldn't see a rise in 3rd party candidates. These parties routinely get single digits. I don't think you give a party 3% of the Representatives. The Dems and the Republicans are still going to get at least 30-40% of the vote anywhere in the country. I'd be interested in seeing a plan on exactly how this would work as well as numbers on how this would work if it had been applied in the last election vs what actually happened.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Let's say you have 5 Congressional seats. Do you vote for them on an at-large basis across the state?
Click to expand...
If there is only 5, then yes.

A.Nonymous said:
I'm not a huge fan of that as the populated areas are going to have a huge influence on the process in that case.
Click to expand...

One man, one vote? Isnt an urban vote no more important than a rural one?

A.Nonymous said:
I'm also skeptical that it would really make a difference in the overall outcome. We certainly wouldn't see a rise in 3rd party candidates. These parties routinely get single digits. I don't think you give a party 3% of the Representatives.
Click to expand...
Well of course you wont get third parties with first past the post. Good god.

A.Nonymous said:
The Dems and the Republicans are still going to get at least 30-40% of the vote anywhere in the country. I'd be interested in seeing a plan on exactly how this would work as well as numbers on how this would work if it had been applied in the last election vs what actually happened.
Click to expand...
But that does not mean other parties cannot have an influence by going for that 20-40% of possible voters.
Add in a whip system and you'll have coalition governments.
 
One man, one vote? Isnt an urban vote no more important than a rural one?
Click to expand...

In the current system yes. In the proposed system I'm not so sure. I live in a state that is largely rural, but nearly half of the population of the state is concentrated in 2-3 big cities. The rest is spread around in the rural areas. There are other states where this discrepancy is even more marked and the vast majority of the state is urban with only a small portion being rural. In an at large system, the candidates will represent that urban population, not the rural one at the end of the day. The rural communities will be unrepresented altogether.


But that does not mean other parties cannot have an influence by going for that 20-40% of possible voters.
Add in a whip system and you'll have coalition governments.
Click to expand...

So essentially you are proposing that we scrap our Constitution and start from scratch?
 
A.Nonymous said:
In the current system yes. In the proposed system I'm not so sure. I live in a state that is largely rural, but nearly half of the population of the state is concentrated in 2-3 big cities. The rest is spread around in the rural areas. There are other states where this discrepancy is even more marked and the vast majority of the state is urban with only a small portion being rural. In an at large system, the candidates will represent that urban population, not the rural one at the end of the day. The rural communities will be unrepresented altogether.
Click to expand...

Well, its the federal Parliament, its too big for little urban/rural divides.

A.Nonymous said:
So essentially you are proposing that we scrap our Constitution and start from scratch?
Click to expand...

Why not, if that's what it takes?
 
A.Nonymous said:
In the current system yes. In the proposed system I'm not so sure. I live in a state that is largely rural, but nearly half of the population of the state is concentrated in 2-3 big cities. The rest is spread around in the rural areas. There are other states where this discrepancy is even more marked and the vast majority of the state is urban with only a small portion being rural. In an at large system, the candidates will represent that urban population, not the rural one at the end of the day. The rural communities will be unrepresented altogether.

So essentially you are proposing that we scrap our Constitution and start from scratch?
Click to expand...

I live in New York but I live in a town with 700 people . the less government the better this place is dying. I'll take the Republicans is the lesser of the 2 evils I trust a Mormon better than I trust Obama
 
ElasticNinja said:
Well, its the federal Parliament, its too big for little urban/rural divides.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's supposed to represent the people, not just the urban areas. That problem is solved with the current districting system although said system is far from perfect for all the reasons already pointed out.
 
I guess I don't understand the big deal with requiring a photo ID to vote. You are required to have a photo ID to by liquor, cigarettes, hunting and fishing licenses. I would think voting would be at the top of the list.

Maybe I don't get the problem with the requirement :confused:
 
tramalot said:
I live in New York but I live in a town with 700 people . the less government the better this place is dying. I'll take the Republicans is the lesser of the 2 evils I trust a Mormon better than I trust Obama
Click to expand...
LOL.
I dont even

A.Nonymous said:
No, it's not. It's supposed to represent the people, not just the urban areas. That problem is solved with the current districting system although said system is far from perfect for all the reasons already pointed out.
Click to expand...
Well with that argument, one could say we need 2000 federal reps.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Well with that argument, one could say we need 2000 federal reps.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Let's say a theoretical state is divided 50/50 area wise with half urban and half rural areas. In theory you would cut it right down the middle and thus have the rural state elect their representative and the urban half elect their representative. So both sides of the state would have equal representation even if 75% of the populace lived on the urban half of the state.
 
buzzcon said:
I guess I don't understand the big deal with requiring a photo ID to vote. You are required to have a photo ID to by liquor, cigarettes, hunting and fishing licenses. I would think voting would be at the top of the list.

Maybe I don't get the problem with the requirement :confused:
Click to expand...

Inactive thread on subject
http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/598370-voting-fraud.html#post4792359

Active related thread
http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/612319-vote-counting.html#post4909948
 
A.Nonymous said:
No, it's not. It's supposed to represent the people, not just the urban areas. That problem is solved with the current districting system although said system is far from perfect for all the reasons already pointed out.
Click to expand...

Wrong, districts of equal population. Urban/Rural is not a requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom