Rath said:
Mr Khan said:
My way would work in that case as well, just so long as there wasn't overwhelming support for one particular party candidate, you could still vote the other way, and knowing you had a chance to vote again, could vote to your heart (and in a close 50/50 race, sapping one vote from one side would force a runoff, so if enough support accrued at the margins, you would get the chance to vote again, at least for the winners)
Do y'all in New Zealand have simple-plurality elections, or proportional representation? Most commonwealths have the former...
|
In NZ we have MMP which seems to work pretty well.
We have constituencies in which we directly elect a politician to represent us locally but we also have proportional representation in which you vote for a party and if they get enough of the vote they get members in parliament which they get to choose. We do have a 5% vote threshold on the proportional representation (they need at least 5% of the overall vote to get anybody in parliament) basically to stop some extreme fringe from being a kingmaker.
The system has flaws, small parties are somewhat too powerful, but it is reasonably balanced.
Now onto the topic. Here are my suggestions for America.
1) Fix your healthcare system. I don't know exactly what is wrong with it (though I suspect at least some of the problem is due to doctors being sued?) but it's broken and it's costing you way too much. Proportional to GDP healthcare for all other OECD countries I think is less than 10%, in America (once again from memory) it's 17%.
2) Somehow or another get a third party. Whether its through proportional representation or whatever doesn't really matter (it isn't exactly needed, Britain has four parties in parliament with first past the post). The current two party system isn't a healthy political environment.
3) Make some cuts to your military budget. It's pretty extreme at the moment, and when you need to save money it's a lot of money to be untouchable.
4) Have some way of making your politicians accountable to their country, not just their constituency. As it currently stands your politicians try and earmark as much money for pet projects in their area as possible, no matter the cost to the country.
|
1) It's 16% and a lot are over 10%... Chances are the OCED countries reach the US before the US reaches the OCED Countries.
US healthcare costs are actually rising slower as a percentage of GDP then most OCED Countries... all healthcare costs are rising.
There are two big isues when it comse to the cost of healthcare, Medicine IP laws and Technology.
Medicine IP laws basically allow you to keep your patents if you find a new use for your drug. In order to "continue researching" the drug.
Except what this really does is just allow drug companies to hang on to medicine FOREVER. Whenever a new use for it is found... either by doctors or the companies themselves, they just sit on it.
For Technology... the US spends waaay more then any other country on medical research. As a result... that means way more testing of expensive prototypes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112522353
The US ends up sorting a lot of this out while the more socialized and conservative governments just adopt it after the US has found what works best... and pricing has stablized.
The US represnts something like 75%-82% of all technology research.
http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388
2) It looks like it might be coming, though not in the way most people would like.
3) Can't disagree there. The problem is, nobody looks to cut foreign bases... and instead looks to cut the strength and technology of the Military.
4) The Republicans have passed a "Ban on Earmarks" i believe. Only for 2 years but it's a start.