• 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 support the Fair Representation Act?

Do you support the Fair Representation Act?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • No

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Total voters
    17
I voted yes before I watched the video, which I shouldn't have done.

I don't think what the video suggests is really necessary. I'm very much in favor of ranked choice voting and ending gerrymandering, but I don't really see how what the video suggests improves on just doing those two things.
 
Redress said:
Why is winner wins not preferred?
Click to expand...

Because then you basically devolve into politics based on winners and losers in each district. The winner gets everything while the losers voters are left without representation.

Excon said:
No.


No. Republic is fine as well as most accurate.


That is being apathetic.


Yes.
While he may not like it, it is "just fine".
Click to expand...

Saying we are a republic is fine. Saying we are a democracy is also fine.

If what you say is true about apathy, then our system actively encourages it. Hence, a reason why the system is broken.
 
Moderate Right said:
Do you actually have any proof that RCV would change the turnout rate?
Click to expand...

The only evidence I can point out is New Zealand, which switched over to MMP from First Past the Post back in the 90s. Turnout for the subsequent election was about five points higher than the most recent first past the post election, but then again, voter turnout was already high in New Zealand to begin with. And since no country has been using RCV specifically for less than 50 years, I can't really give any other examples. My best guess is that we'd see a turnout a couple percentage points higher, at least for a little while.
 
molten_dragon said:
I voted yes before I watched the video, which I shouldn't have done.

I don't think what the video suggests is really necessary. I'm very much in favor of ranked choice voting and ending gerrymandering, but I don't really see how what the video suggests improves on just doing those two things.
Click to expand...

I feel the same. With this gerrymandering wont end in fact a state could just gerrymander their way around this. And as another said earlier it would lead to lots of run offs.
The video brings up some ideas and points, but it is not a solution.
 
molten_dragon said:
I voted yes before I watched the video, which I shouldn't have done.

I don't think what the video suggests is really necessary. I'm very much in favor of ranked choice voting and ending gerrymandering, but I don't really see how what the video suggests improves on just doing those two things.
Click to expand...

The problem behind gerrymandering is that it inflates the amount of seats won out of proportion to what the vote share was and makes it impossible for the votes of those in the minority of each district to mean anything. Ranked choice voting needs to be multi-member if you want any real shot of third parties gaining traction.

SocialD said:
I feel the same. With this gerrymandering wont end in fact a state could just gerrymander their way around this. And as another said earlier it would lead to lots of run offs.
The video brings up some ideas and points, but it is not a solution.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering would be less of an issue. Although while its still theoretically possible, you would remove some of the incentive for doing so as people's votes will most likely elect someone no matter how the districts are drawn.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Still no.
The election system works just fine.


And ranked voting nonsense.
Click to expand...

Let's recall that the founder's vision was never about representation and/or equality for all, far from it. Only affluent white land holding males got the vote and the senate was appointed by the aristocracy. A ruling political class to subjugate the masses, just like today.
 
gobbler said:
No, because for single-member states like Montana and Vermont, the "ranked-choice voting" method devolves into instant-runoff voting (IRV), which is an unrepresentative, winner-takes-all, majoritarian voting system.

Multi-member districts are a great idea, but FairVote really needs to lose their obsession with ranking ballots and IRV. Score ballots are much better.



You know this is about electing state representatives, right? It has nothing to do with the national election.
Click to expand...

Umm, score voting could lead to people gaming the system. They would just give the top rank for candidates they like to help them win. So really, it becomes at large voting where people vote for more than one candidate.
 
Roycarn said:
Because then you basically devolve into politics based on winners and losers in each district. The winner gets everything while the losers voters are left without representation.
Click to expand...
iLOL
No. They are still represented by the person who received the most votes.


Roycarn said:
Saying we are a democracy is also fine.
Click to expand...
No it really isn't as it leads to a false impression of what we are not.


Roycarn said:
If what you say is true about apathy, then our system actively encourages it. Hence, a reason why the system is broken.
Click to expand...
No and no.
It does not encourage it and does not mean it is broken. This line of thought is most likely caused by thinking we are a Democracy and not the Republic that we were set up to be.




Fenton Lum said:
Let's recall that the founder's vision was never about representation and/or equality for all, far from it. Only affluent white land holding males got the vote and the senate was appointed by the aristocracy. A ruling political class to subjugate the masses, just like today.
Click to expand...
1. White? Males? iLOL While not untrue, it is an attempt at negativity and therefore a spun narrative, as that is the only way it could have been at the time.

2. Who is saying otherwise?
I doubt I would say otherwise, especially as land owners (which in this day and age includes all races and sexes) is definitely a far better way than what we have now.
 
I'd be all for only letting landowners vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Excon said:
iLOL
No. They are still represented by the person who received the most votes.


No it really isn't as it leads to a false impression of what we are not.


No and no.
It does not encourage it and does not mean it is broken. This line of thought is most likely caused by thinking we are a Democracy and not the Republic that we were set up to be.




1. White? Males? iLOL While not untrue, it is an attempt at negativity and therefore a spun narrative, as that is the only way it could have been at the time.

2. Who is saying otherwise?
I doubt I would say otherwise, especially as land owners (which in this day and age includes all races and sexes) is definitely a far better way than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you can be represented by someone who you did not vote for. If you can, what's the point of having a competitive election anyway? Why not just be a one party state like China or North Korea?

Yes, we are a republic. Yes we are a democracy. We happen to be both because we have free elections and that every citizen over the age of 18 can vote. There is not misrepresentation by characterizing our system as a democracy, it's just slightly ore accurate to say that we are a republic because that's a sub-type we have.

If votes don't matter, then that's a reason for apathy as you defined it (that people don't vote). If you're saying that it's not totally accurate to call our system completely broken, I'd agree. That doesn't mean that there are clear disadvantages to keeping our current system versus the one he's advocating for.
 
Roycarn said:
Explain to me how you can be represented by someone who you did not vote for. If you can, what's the point of having a competitive election anyway? Why not just be a one party state like China or North Korea?

Yes, we are a republic. Yes we are a democracy. We happen to be both because we have free elections and that every citizen over the age of 18 can vote. There is not misrepresentation by characterizing our system as a democracy, it's just slightly ore accurate to say that we are a republic because that's a sub-type we have.

If votes don't matter, then that's a reason for apathy as you defined it (that people don't vote). If you're saying that it's not totally accurate to call our system completely broken, I'd agree. That doesn't mean that there are clear disadvantages to keeping our current system versus the one he's advocating for.
Click to expand...

For ranked choice voting, if your favorite candidate doesn't receive enough votes to stay in, your vote will go to your second favorite. If your second favorite doesn't have enough votes to stay in, your vote will go to your third favorite and the process will keep continuing until someone gains a majority
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom