• 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!

Should the US go to a parliamentary system

Should the US go to parliamentary system to curb gerrymandering


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

voyager1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
974
Reaction score
234
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Because of gerrymandering should the US go to a parliamentary system?
 
We could do away with Congressional districts .

No, you need districts to have a parliamentary system. The problem is not the system, it is how it is carried out.

A district should be about population size only. But in the US there are so many consideration's that it is beyond idiotic.
 
No, you need districts to have a parliamentary system. The problem is not the system, it is how it is carried out.

A district should be about population size only. But in the US there are so many consideration's that it is beyond idiotic.

Why wouldn't a winner take all system for the state not work for the House of Reps. The number of reps determined by population?
 
Why wouldn't a winner take all system for the state not work for the House of Reps. The number of reps determined by population?

That just makes two houses of congress with both based on at large elections.
 
Because of gerrymandering should the US go to a parliamentary system?

Why would anyone want a parliamentary system? You lose a vital control of the Executive that is very difficult to recapture.
 
Why wouldn't a winner take all system for the state not work for the House of Reps. The number of reps determined by population?

Would make elections non local and very expensive to do if every candidate would have to run for a whole state. Take California, you would have say 70 seats and 300 people running for those seats. Local issues would be out the window, and low population density areas would be ignored. Could you imagine the TV debates? :)

No instead there should a totally independent board of experts should set up and maintain the districts based on certain factors everyone can agree on.

For example:

Every district has to be continuous. Yes sounds stupid but is actually important. Right now there are several districts that are split over many areas and none of them are connected.

Each district has to have a population of say approx 500k. No consideration for race, religion or past political standing.

This works in Scandinavia, so why on earth cant it work in the US?
 
Are they formal criteria that override population numbers?

Dunno, but they certainly define the districts and that is wrong. You are stacking the deck by doing this pure and simple, and that is why so many congressional seats are "sure things" and not contested these days. It has gotten much worse the last few decades with the GOP taking over states. The last election far more people voted for the democrats but the House did not flip... that should not happen.
 
Dunno, but they certainly define the districts and that is wrong. You are stacking the deck by doing this pure and simple, and that is why so many congressional seats are "sure things" and not contested these days. It has gotten much worse the last few decades with the GOP taking over states. The last election far more people voted for the democrats but the House did not flip... that should not happen.

Aha. I am glad we talked about it.
 
No, you need districts to have a parliamentary system. The problem is not the system, it is how it is carried out.

A district should be about population size only. But in the US there are so many consideration's that it is beyond idiotic.

You can have a purely list based, non-geographic, parliamentary system without districts or riders. Many countries do it. In this system there are a set number of seats in the legislator and political parties arrange a list with an order of precedence. Seats are allocated as a proportion of the popular vote and the more seats one the further down the list (which is their slate of candidates) you go. The party leader is usually at the top of the list to ensure his or her entrance into the legislature.
 
You can have a purely list based, non-geographic, parliamentary system without districts or riders. Many countries do it. In this system there are a set number of seats in the legislator and political parties arrange a list with an order of precedence. Seats are allocated as a proportion of the popular vote and the more seats one the further down the list (which is their slate of candidates) you go. The party leader is usually at the top of the list to ensure his or her entrance into the legislature.

I know, I come from a country with such a system, but we still have districts. I can not think of one country that does not have some sort of district system to elect their politicians.
 
I know, I come from a country with such a system, but we still have districts. I can not think of one country that does not have some sort of district system to elect their politicians.

Off the top of my head? I know Israel lacks electoral districts, I believe Italy has them but that they serve only a very minor purpose.
 
Off the top of my head? I know Israel lacks electoral districts

Dude... have you seen the size and population of Israel vs say California or Texas? You piss one way in Israel and you hit another country or the ocean..:)

It could work in places like New Hampshire and Delaware I guess, but in high population areas and especially high geographic space areas..hell no.
 
I believe Italy has them but that they serve only a very minor purpose.

Italy has districts.. 27 to be exact.

I am not saying that 1 district = 1 seat. I am saying you need an administrative system to divide up a country/state and then within those administrative divides, people can vote and elect multiple candidates.

Take Denmark, here we have districts, and each district has a certain amount of seats based on population numbers. When I go to elect someone, I can vote for the party or a person. Considering the amount of candidates and political parties, the "small districts" have 20+ candidates easy. Last election I voted in the ballot was over half a meter long with most parties having 5+ candidates each, and the big ones having 10.

Or take California. If you go by state only, then each candidate or political party would have to run a state wide campaign, mostly centring on heavy population areas. This would make elections expensive and highly prohibitive for most people. Face it a politican could just concentrate around San Francisco and L.A/San Diego/Orange county and easily win. No need to go to other areas really or am I wrong with my population geography?

Now if you divide up California into say 10 districts or whatever you want to call them, based on population or geopgraphy, then suddenly it gets much cheaper and far more local. You can have multiple seats per district, and it can be done in various ways.. like the Israeli, like the Italian, or Danish or first past the goalpost approach. There are many ways of doing it.

But by reducing the area for each elected official, then you make it cheaper and accessible for parties and people to run. I mean how many 10s of millions does an average Senate race cost these days and those races are hardly competitive.
 
Back
Top Bottom