• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you vote? (poll)

Do you vote?

  • Yes: in all elections (national and local)

    Votes: 55 64.0%

  • Yes: but only in national and some local

    Votes: 14 16.3%

  • Yes: but only national

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Maybe: it depends on the election

    Votes: 6 7.0%

  • No: I'm not old enough, yet.

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • No: not at all

    Votes: 3 3.5%

  • No: I'm not legally permitted

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 5.8%
  • Total voters
    86
Catawba said:
It does support my position, and I also said our system would be more representative with less apathetic citizens.
Click to expand...

How when the system's lack of representation is what causes the apathy?

There is an option, work to change the system, all you need is enough people to support your position.
Click to expand...

This is false. Gerrymandering prevents any such attempts form working.

Rebellion is no better option because you still have to gain the support of enough people to support your position.
Click to expand...

"Enough people" is a far cry from "a majority of people".

The only issue that affects rebellion is whether or not the status quo is bad enough that it is worth risking one's life in order to change it vs. Whether or not people think the status quo is good enough to think it is worth risking their life to preserve it.

If the former outweighs the latter, violent rebellion can be successful without having anywhere close to majority support.

To explain using the choosing a direction analogy. If there are 20 people making the choice, and 11 decide on one direction, but only 1 of them is actually willing to kill and die to support that choice while 6 of the 9 who voted differently are willing to kill and die to support their choice, rebellion is easily achieved despite only having 30% in favor of it.

It may be more difficult to convince 2 people to change votes than it is to rebel.



I think maybe why other countries seem better represented to you, is that many other countries people are more enlightened than Americans. When we are as enlightened as other people, so will be our representative government. Americans are pretty far to the right politically compared to most of the industrialized world. Its not surprising to me that our representative government reflects this.
Click to expand...

They are better represented because their systems are one's that allow them to be better represented. Simple as that. Whether I agree or disagree with their politics has no bearing on a simple analysis of representation.

The reason they seem more enlightened to you is simply because you tend to agree with their politics. Don't allow subjective agreement with tehir politics to cause you to ignore a systemic issue in our own government.

Even if the majority of people in the US were more enlightened by your standards, our government would remain one that has low representation unless there were major systemic changes employed regarding our election system.

Enlightenment has no bearing on the fact that the system is designed so that it is less representative.





I've already noted that voter apathy hinders democracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you said that. You failed to do a single thing to support that idea, but you certainly said it.

I, however, have demonstrated how our system is not a representative one and that these systemic problems are the root cause of voter apathy.






One of the most important things I learned in Government class was that Democracy is not a lazy man's government, it requires active participation to work, and sometimes that involves protest.
Click to expand...

And one of the most important things I learned in government class was that the US isn't really a democracy. :shrug:





If more people had voted for Gore in enough states, that would not have been the case.
Click to expand...

:lol: Do you actually think that this helps your position? The part I have bolded should be a clear indicator that it doesn't.



How did the other countries you prefer get to multi-party representation?
Click to expand...

Depends on the country.

In many cases, the same way we got to our minimally-representative system: violent rebellion.

In others, they created/adopted a new form of government based on proportional systems.
 
I vote in every election I'm entitled to vote in. Currently that means EU parliamentary elections, UK general elections, and Spanish municipal elections.

Oh, and in Eurovision Song Contest tele-votes. ;)
 
Tucker Case said:
How when the system's lack of representation is what causes the apathy?
Click to expand...

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?


This is false. Gerrymandering prevents any such attempts form working.
Click to expand...

The independents elected to public office suggest otherwise.



"Enough people" is a far cry from "a majority of people".
The only issue that affects rebellion is whether or not the status quo is bad enough that it is worth risking one's life in order to change it vs. Whether or not people think the status quo is good enough to think it is worth risking their life to preserve it.

If the former outweighs the latter, violent rebellion can be successful without having anywhere close to majority support.

To explain using the choosing a direction analogy. If there are 20 people making the choice, and 11 decide on one direction, but only 1 of them is actually willing to kill and die to support that choice while 6 of the 9 who voted differently are willing to kill and die to support their choice, rebellion is easily achieved despite only having 30% in favor of it.

It may be more difficult to convince 2 people to change votes than it is to rebel.
Click to expand...

If you expect to win a civil war, a majority would come in handy I would think.





They are better represented because their systems are one's that allow them to be better represented. Simple as that. Whether I agree or disagree with their politics has no bearing on a simple analysis of representation.

The reason they seem more enlightened to you is simply because you tend to agree with their politics. Don't allow subjective agreement with tehir politics to cause you to ignore a systemic issue in our own government.

Even if the majority of people in the US were more enlightened by your standards, our government would remain one that has low representation unless there were major systemic changes employed regarding our election system.

Enlightenment has no bearing on the fact that the system is designed so that it is less representative.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think it is only possible for a representative government to be as enlightened as those it represents.




Depends on the country.

In many cases, the same way we got to our minimally-representative system: violent rebellion.

In others, they created/adopted a new form of government based on proportional systems.
Click to expand...

Looks like you need a civil war or a whole lot of people that agree we need to change to a proportional system. It might even take a.............majority!

This seems to be a "catch 22" situation.
 
Catawba said:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

The egg. Evolutionarily speaking, Eggs certainly predate chickens. By a very, very large margin.




The independents elected to public office suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

The fact that they are exceedingly rare (despite the fact that thereare about as many independents as there are members of the two parties in the country) indicates that my statement is very accurate.

About a third of all people in the US are independents. Less than a third of one percent of federally elected people are independents.

Just because there are very rare exceptions doesn't mean that it isn't the case.




If you expect to win a civil war, a majority would come in handy I would think.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation and the will of the population to fight.





I disagree, I think it is only possible for a representative government to be as enlightened as those it represents.
Click to expand...

That's peachy.

But the question is why do you think degree enlightenment (by your subjectively defined standards of enlightenment) matters in a discussion about how represetnative a government is?







Looks like you need a civil war or a whole lot of people that agree we need to change to a proportional system. It might even take a.............majority!
Click to expand...

True. And if you had bothered to understand what I've been saying, you'd see that nothing about that statement conflicts with what I've been saying in any way shape or form.

This seems to be a "catch 22" situation.
Click to expand...

If it seems that way to you, it's only because you have chosen to not understand what you've been arguing against.
 
Tucker Case said:
But the question is why do you think degree enlightenment (by your subjectively defined standards of enlightenment) matters in a discussion about how represetnative a government is?
Click to expand...

I haven't been convinced our government doesn't represent our people's values and goals as well as another country represents their people's values and goals.

More enlightened, more progressive, more socially evolved, call it what you will. The term is not important. It all comes down to the fact that we are a somewhat backward people compared to some countries that have socially evolved (grown) more than we have. So it stands to reason to me that our government is somewhat backward compared to those countries where the people are more socially evolved, exactly because it is representative of who we are.
 
Last edited:
Seems strange to ask individuals to vote on whether they do or do not vote.
 
Catawba said:
I haven't been convinced our government doesn't represent our people's values and goals as well as another country represents their people's values and goals.
Click to expand...


33% of the country are neither democrats or republicans. Less than more than 99% of our federal representatives are either democrats or republicans.

What else do you need to convince you that it is not very representative?

More enlightened, more progressive, more socially evolved, call it what you will.
Click to expand...

all of those things are subjectively determine dy you. They have no bearing on the representation discussion.


The term is not important.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, neither is the concept. :shrug:

It all comes down to the fact that we are a somewhat backward people compared to some countries that have socially evolved (grown) more than we have.
Click to expand...

By your estimation.

So it stands to reason to me that our government is somewhat backward compared to those countries where the people are more socially evolved, exactly because it is representative of who we are.
Click to expand...

That's circular logic. You are including your premise in your conclusion. Of course it seems to stand to reason when you do that. Doesn't change the fact that it is invalid logic designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
 
Tucker Case said:
33% of the country are neither democrats or republicans. Less than more than 99% of our federal representatives are either democrats or republicans.
Click to expand...

Democrats and Republicans come in many varieties, just like the people they represent. Some are far left, some are liberal, some are green, some are in the middle, some are conservative, and some are far right.

What else do you need to convince you that it is not very representative?
Click to expand...

How about some examples of how our government is acting in a way that is not representative of the people it represents?



all of those things are subjectively determine dy you. They have no bearing on the representation discussion.
Click to expand...


They most definitely do, as government can be no better than the people it represents.
 
Catawba said:
Democrats and Republicans come in many varieties, just like the people they represent. Some are far left, some are liberal, some are green, some are in the middle, some are conservative, and some are far right.
Click to expand...

The one variety they don't come in, can't come in, is Independent. Regardless of what they claim their views are in order to get votes, they still tend vote along partisan lines while in office.



How about some examples of how our government is acting in a way that is not representative of the people it represents?
Click to expand...

You were given one example (the ultimate example). You keep trying to ignore it.


They most definitely do, as government can be no better than the people it represents.
Click to expand...

But it can certainly be worse than it's people by not adequately representing it's people.

Our government doesn't have representation for at least a third of it's people.
 
Tucker Case said:
The one variety they don't come in, can't come in, is Independent. Regardless of what they claim their views are in order to get votes, they still tend vote along partisan lines while in office.
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow what I have seen. For example, a majority of Democrats in congress voted against the war in Iraq, independent of the party leaders who supported AOF in Iraq. If they had been independents, instead of Democrats, how would the end result have been any different?


You were given one example (the ultimate example). You keep trying to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Refresh my memory, please.




Our government doesn't have representation for at least a third of it's people.
Click to expand...

Not surprising, given the percentage of people that do not vote. You have to sit at the table if you want to be a part of the discussion.
 
Catawba said:
That doesn't follow what I have seen. For example, a majority of Democrats in congress voted against the war in Iraq, independent of the party leaders who supported AOF in Iraq. If they had been independents, instead of Democrats, how would the end result have been any different?
Click to expand...

That just shows that in this rare case, the party leaders were not in step with the partisan lines.


Why do you think that the end result of one vote in congress matters when the issue is that our government is minimally representative of it's people? Do you think that my position is affected in any way by this?

If so, then you have continued to not understand my position.

Refresh my memory, please.
Click to expand...

The proportions of democrats/republicans in elected office compared to the demographics of the nation.


Not surprising, given the percentage of people that do not vote. You have to sit at the table if you want to be a part of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Are you actually completely ignorant of gerrymandering and it's effects on US elections, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse?
 
Tucker Case said:
That just shows that in this rare case, the party leaders were not in step with the partisan lines.


Why do you think that the end result of one vote in congress matters when the issue is that our government is minimally representative of it's people?
Click to expand...

Its not a single instance, here's another example: a large portion of House Democrats voted against Obama's compromise with the GOP in extending the Bush tax cuts in 2010.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll647.xml



The proportions of democrats/republicans in elected office compared to the demographics of the nation.
Click to expand...

So that is all that would change after the civil war? No policy changes that better reflect all of the American people???




Are you actually completely ignorant of gerrymandering and it's effects on US elections, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse?
Click to expand...

I have never said I am opposed to redistricting reform.
 
Catawba said:
Its not a single instance, here's another example: a large portion of House Democrats voted against Obama's compromise with the GOP in extending the Bush tax cuts in 2010.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll647.xml
Click to expand...

They voted against the compromise. They didn't vote against the party line. They voted against straying from the party line. That doesn't really help your case.


So that is all that would change after the civil war?
Click to expand...

When did I say there would be a civil war? Hint: I said the exact opposite about this issue. Stop being dishonest.

No policy changes that better reflect all of the American people???
Click to expand...

I never said there'd be no policy changes, either. There would be policy changes, but you can't use policy-results from this ass-backwards system to predict how and where those changes would occur.


I will say that there would be a significant decrease in voter apathy, a large increase in voter turnout, and far less disenfranchisement in the electorate.

What happens to policies themselves after such a change is not nearly as predictable as those things are.


I have never said I am opposed to redistricting reform.
Click to expand...

And how will you make it so that whatever reforms are put in place don't allow bipartisan attempts to crowd out third parties from winning elections if they do manage to have a successful grassroots effort to gain local support?

Such bipartisan gerrymandering is relatively common today.
 
Tucker Case said:
They voted against the compromise. They didn't vote against the party line. They voted against straying from the party line. That doesn't really help your case.
Click to expand...

They voted in opposition to what their party leaders wanted.



When did I say there would be a civil war? Hint: I said the exact opposite about this issue. Stop being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Previously, you listed two ways that multi-party representation had come about. One was through violence and the other was to adopt the system through our political process.



I never said there'd be no policy changes, either. There would be policy changes, but you can't use policy-results from this ass-backwards system to predict how and where those changes would occur.

I will say that there would be a significant decrease in voter apathy, a large increase in voter turnout, and far less disenfranchisement in the electorate.

What happens to policies themselves after such a change is not nearly as predictable as those things are.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get your point that you think we would be better represented by a multi-party system, but I am trying to understand in what ways you feel that our government is not representing the will of the people. What do you expect to change, policy wise, with multi-party representation?



And how will you make it so that whatever reforms are put in place don't allow bipartisan attempts to crowd out third parties from winning elections if they do manage to have a successful grassroots effort to gain local support?

Such bipartisan gerrymandering is relatively common today.
Click to expand...

it would have to be changed through the political process, the same way a multi-party system would have to be adopted. There is a bill in Congress to address redistricting that would limit changes to every 10 years and it would have to be based on the census.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
They voted in opposition to what their party leaders wanted.
Click to expand...

That's a different thing than voting against the party line.




Previously, you listed two ways that multi-party representation had come about. One was through violence and the other was to adopt the system through our political process.
Click to expand...

And I also stated previously that civil war was not an option in the US because the issue is not one that people feel is worth dying for.

Since your comment was specifically about the differences between the US's system and the system I am discussing, you should have the integrity to note that I had said that. Civil war is the way that such a system comes about when the current status quo of that nation is far worse than our status quo so that a person does feel that killing and dying for a change is a better alternative than the status quo.

That is not the case in the US.





Yes, I get your point that you think we would be better represented by a multi-party system, but I am trying to understand in what ways you feel that our government is not representing the will of the people.
Click to expand...


The problem here is that you are equivocating on the word "represent", which is a fallacious and possibly dishonest (if it is being done on purpose) approach to the discussion.

A tyrannical dictatorship can represent the will of the people, but that doesn't make it a representative form of government. The first step towards understanding my position would be to stop engaging in such fallacious rebuttals. I can't force you to do this, but until you do, understanding cannot be achieved.

What do you expect to change, policy wise, with multi-party representation?
Click to expand...

The policy decisions are a secondary consideration to the representation issue and they are totally unpredictable. Policies could change dramatically or not at all. It's totally unpredictable.

What would definitely change, though, is that a great many people who aren't represented in our government would have a voice in that government which is utterly unattainable in the current system, and this inability to have a voice in government directly leads to voter apathy and disenfranchisement.

You seem to want to make my position about policy alone when it is about representation. Why are you doing that and ignoring my actual positions?



it would have to be changed through the political process, the same way a multi-party system would have to be adopted. There is a bill in Congress to address redistricting that would limit changes to every 10 years and it would have to be based on the census.
Click to expand...

That's how you would try to get it passed, but that doesn't even come remotely close to answering the question that I actually asked.
 
Catawba said:
Well, looks like that ends our discussion.
Click to expand...

Why? Are you not able to glean the specific definition of "representation" I am using in this context?

Your definition shifts from one use of the word to the other (which is why it is equivocation). Mine is remaining consistent (which is why it is not equivocation).
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Why? Are you not able to glean the specific definition of "representation" I am using in this context?

Your definition shifts from one use of the word to the other (which is why it is equivocation). Mine is remaining consistent (which is why it is not equivocation).
Click to expand...

Best of luck to you in your quest!
 
Tucker Case said:
Good point. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
Click to expand...

Indeed. "You must return here with a shrubbery or else you will never pass through this wood alive!" - Monty Python
 
Catawba said:
Indeed. "You must return here with a shrubbery or else you will never pass through this wood alive!" - Monty Python
Click to expand...

"Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom