By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - I would still vote Democrat even if Hillary was the worst human being on earth...

sethnintendo said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

You vote individually for each office.  That's more democratic than most standard parlimentary systems.

 

Proportional representation is still far superior than winner takes all. I'd rather have a proportional system.

Not necessarily.  Both systems have their faults.  But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic.  As in, decision my those ruled.  The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process.  The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter said:
sethnintendo said:

 

Proportional representation is still far superior than winner takes all. I'd rather have a proportional system.

Not necessarily.  Both systems have their faults.  But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic.  As in, decision my those ruled.  The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process.  The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.

I get where you are coming from.  I just hate how our system is set up where the losers are pretty much told to pack up and try again next election cycle.  I think giving a proportion (most proportional are not true proportional) is more fair than nothing at all.  It just kind of sucks being in a state that votes for a party that you don't like.  The electoral college basically writes off most states are either red or blue and just focuses on a few states like Ohio or Florida.  I am surprised that Texas is now supposedly a tight race but that could be because of the two most disliked candidates in history being the representatives of their parties. Oh and I also don't approve the process of gerrymandering.

That being said isn't the United States a Republic?  Technically USA is a Republic first and foremost that democratically elects their representatives.  I believe in order to be a democracry the citizens vote directly on laws (which happens for bond issues /state and local issues I suppose).



sethnintendo said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

Not necessarily.  Both systems have their faults.  But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic.  As in, decision my those ruled.  The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process.  The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.

I get where you are coming from.  I just hate how our system is set up where the losers are pretty much told to pack up and try again next election cycle.  I think giving a proportion (most proportional are not true proportional) is more fair than nothing at all.  It just kind of sucks being in a state that votes for a party that you don't like.  The electoral college basically rights off most states are either red or blue and just focuses on a few states like Ohio or Florida.  I am surprised that Texas is now supposedly a tight race but that could be because of the two most disliked candidates being the representatives of their parties. Oh and I also don't approve the process of gerrymandering.

That being said isn't the United States a Republic?  Technically USA is a Republic first and foremost that democratically elects their representatives.  I believe in order to be a democracry the citizens vote directly on laws (which happens for bond issues / local level I suppose).

There are multiple types of democracies out there... We are in fact a constitutional republic. We do, however, elect most of our leaders democratically. This was not always the case. Originally, the representatives/senators nominated/elected the presidents. But this has changed in favor of direct-voting primaries.. That isn't even a very old concept, as you can look back at nominations in the 1950s and 1960s where 1/2 the states didn't even vote on the nomination.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

vivster said:
SanAndreasX said:
Things to consider:

The next President is likely to have the first opportunity for a single President to shape the Supreme Court since Nixon transformed the liberal Warren Court into the conservative Burger Court by appointing four justices. Scalia's seat remains unfilled, and several other justices are in their 80s and could die or retire at any time. Most estimates say at least 3 seats (including Scalia's) will be up for grabs in the next Presidential term.

In my eyes right now, Congress is the enemy, especially the House. Personally, I want a President and a Supreme Court that will work together to contain Congress until they get their shit together and get all the idiots and religious ideologues out of both the Senate and the House, and until they can get some Congressional reform together that eliminates gerrymandering. The President's role in this is to veto bad laws sent to his or her desk by Congress and to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will overturn unconstitutional legislation.

I think if it is so easily possible to split the supreme court by party lines something is very wrong with the justice system.

Gerrymandering and filibustering are just more inherently undemocratic atrocities that need to be abolished.

I'm not going to argue that point, but I believe in voting within the limits of the political system I have, not the politic system I wish I had. :)

Our judicial system is supposed to be above politics as practiced in the executive and legislative branches. That's why the lifetime appointments (justices don't have to worry about appeasing voters at reelection time, and it's unheard of to impeach them though Congress may do so). Justices are also supposed to vote impartially based on their interpretation of the Constitution. However, justices are appointed by presidents who have their political beliefs and confirmed or denied by senators who likewise have their own beliefs. A justice who is pro choice is going to be anathema to a pro life president or a majority pro life senate. Unless you want all cases decided by a computer it's going to be impossible to keep bias out of the system. 

I would like to see both gerrymandering and filibusters die. In the case of filibusters, the speech should be limited to the issue being debated at the moment, with no ten hour readings of Green Eggs and Ham or other such nonsense. Gerrymandering is a political tactic with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I would like to see it abolished by Constitutional amendment. 



You using the word 'gain' says it all...R's want you to work for your gain, D's want to give it to you.



Around the Network

That is fair and all. But, the thing is: you need to exchange from time to time.
If the policies of the left are taken to the extreme, life will be a nightmare.
If the policies of the right are taken to the extrime, life will be a nightmare.
For now we have to exchange once in a while to prevent crazy freakish power hugry people froma chieving all they ever wanted, that goes left and right.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

sethnintendo said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

Not necessarily.  Both systems have their faults.  But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic.  As in, decision my those ruled.  The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process.  The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.

I get where you are coming from.  I just hate how our system is set up where the losers are pretty much told to pack up and try again next election cycle.  I think giving a proportion (most proportional are not true proportional) is more fair than nothing at all.  It just kind of sucks being in a state that votes for a party that you don't like.  The electoral college basically writes off most states are either red or blue and just focuses on a few states like Ohio or Florida.  I am surprised that Texas is now supposedly a tight race but that could be because of the two most disliked candidates in history being the representatives of their parties. Oh and I also don't approve the process of gerrymandering.

That being said isn't the United States a Republic?  Technically USA is a Republic first and foremost that democratically elects their representatives.  I believe in order to be a democracry the citizens vote directly on laws (which happens for bond issues /state and local issues I suppose).

As a Canadian, I actually really like many aspects of the American system.  Elected judges, seperate election of the president from Congress, elected senate, staggered election cycles and so forth.  So many great checks and balances.

You want to talk about "pack it up and wait for the next election?"  In Canada Justin Trudeau was just elected with 38% of the vote but now essentially has supreme power as majority leader of the parliament.  He's thowing away all pretence of democracy, but takes great selfies so no one cares.

The biggest flaw in US goverment, to my eyes, is the two-party system, both of which have been "bought off" by large loby groups.  Obama blocks pipe lines to because Buffett owns trains.  Bush invades Iraq because Haliburton makes bombs.  Both parties impose sactions agains Iran but ignore Saudi Arabia because the Saudis fund them.  The lack of viable third or fourth alternative parties to disrupt the settled establishment has made the US government largely innefective.  One of the biggest "pros" for me in favor of Trump is that at least he was fairly elected.  The preferred Democrat candidate was likely vitoed by the party heiracrchy. 



vivster said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Also, the US is actually a more "true" democracy than what you're describing in your own country.

Yeah, not voting for the people you want in office but voting for other people who may or may not vote in your favor sure sounds like democratic heaven.

Also making voting as hard as possible sure screams democratic spirit.

I never understood this line, which usually comes from the political left.  Of all the interactions with government agencies and institutions throughout one's life (tax returns, driver's license / auto registration renewal, marriage licenses & divorces, just to name a few), registering to vote is literally the easiest thing you can do, and the voting process itself is as simple as showing up to your local polling place and signing your name in a book.

If you're upset by some of the voter ID laws out there designed to stop fraud, maybe you might want to look into other ways of preventing illegals, criminals and dead people from voting.  I'm sure the Democrats will be just as eager to stop these groups from voting as Republicans are...



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

You just described many people who will be voting for trump this election day. Its 40% candidate, 60% party.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


TheLastStarFighter said:

As a Canadian, I actually really like many aspects of the American system.  Elected judges, seperate election of the president from Congress, elected senate, staggered election cycles and so forth.  So many great checks and balances.

You want to talk about "pack it up and wait for the next election?"  In Canada Justin Trudeau was just elected with 38% of the vote but now essentially has supreme power as majority leader of the parliament.  He's thowing away all pretence of democracy, but takes great selfies so no one cares.

The biggest flaw in US goverment, to my eyes, is the two-party system, both of which have been "bought off" by large loby groups.  Obama blocks pipe lines to because Buffett owns trains.  Bush invades Iraq because Haliburton makes bombs.  Both parties impose sactions agains Iran but ignore Saudi Arabia because the Saudis fund them.  The lack of viable third or fourth alternative parties to disrupt the settled establishment has made the US government largely innefective.  One of the biggest "pros" for me in favor of Trump is that at least he was fairly elected.  The preferred Democrat candidate was likely vitoed by the party heiracrchy. 

Good to see a comment from a Canadian about the US system.. I do agree with you. Our flaw is that its coalesed into two distinct parties with generally opposing ideologies. The underlying value of the American governmental system with checks and balances is (IMO) pretty darn good, as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are hopefully separated enough to allow proper balances. But as you said, its an issue when external influencers start causing problems within the system.. And that is sadly regardless of party line. 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.