Cultureshock
New member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
If not, what type of system would you implement?
If not, what type of system would you implement?
Excellent idea.I would prefer a parliamentary system with multiple pass voting.
I would like to see a lot of smaller, more narrowly focused parties having to negotiate to form a government, I believe this would more closely represent the interests of the citizenry.
If not, what type of system would you implement?
I like our existing system. I do not want to see a President elected with only 34% of the vote.....
I hate seeing our President elected while losing the popular vote.
I would normally agree unless the guy's name is Gore and the point spead was a rounding error. :mrgreen:
I like our existing system. I do not want to see a President elected with only 34% of the vote. I don't want to see all future elections won based on plurality and not majorities. At the end of the day you can change the system but unless people actually take the time to truly study the candidates and then vote accordingly, you will still have a process that guarantees garbage in, garbage out.
so you would want the POTUS to win by popular vote, unless the winner is a liberal?
This is a fair point about a fundamental difference in our structure and parliament. Our President has more power than a prime minister does. However, I don't believe a two party system represents the majority any better than a plurality system. Too many people are voting for the lesser of evils or against the other candidate. You still get the same thing, more people want this than want the other options.
This assumes that there is a two party system. There isn't. Other parties are just pissed that nobody likes them. When was the last time anybody here considered voting for the Constitutionalists?
This assumes that there is a two party system. There isn't. Other parties are just pissed that nobody likes them. When was the last time anybody here considered voting for the Constitutionalists?
I am still waiting for the anti-federalist party to form. :lamo
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..I am definitely NOT happy with the system. Given an option I would make all political parties and political action committees illegal. I would also make several changes to the financial system for campaigns....
1. Only parties who can vote for a particular candidate can donate to that candidate. The removes all foreign money, all corporate money, and all institutional money from the political spectrum.
2. Each voter can only give $100 per office per year, and only to one candidate per office. ie.... Over the 6 years of a Senator's term, each voter could donate a total of $600 (max) to people running for that office, but each year they could only donate to the Incumbent or ONE of that incumbent's opponents.
3. 90 days before an election, all candidates for office MUST provide (in writing) their voting records and personal policy platforms to the registarts of voters of every city and town in their districts to be made available at every Town Hall, Library, and Post Office inside that district.
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..
We have an old system...are we the only non-parliament nation in the world ?
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..
We have an old system...are we the only non-parliament nation in the world ?
I tend to agree with this, especially the monopoly part. The two parties have worked together to effectively make it a monopoly. That needs to change. Equal and reasonable access should be the rule, not the exception.I am not happy with the two party monopoly. Sadly parties in various states have worked to screw 3rd parties,so even if you wanted to vote for a 3rd party candidate you are unable to unless your state allows write ins. The media aids in keeping this two party monopoly by blatantly ignoring 3rd party candidates,so many people are not even aware they exist which results in there being no name recognition with the 3rd parties. Seeing how we have the 1st amendment we can't ban broadcasters from showing political ads nor can we force them to show everybody.We could offer tax incentives to give equal air time to all candidates which would help with name recognition. I think primary should be held on the same day all across the country, so that if a candidate drops out it is because he or she lost, not because a handful of states didn't pick them.
...
These things would help eliminate the two party monopoly.