Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[Belsnickel]

You know what would solve the electoral college problem, still allow the states input in the executive, and potentially help issues between branches? Parliamentary system.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 03:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get your points and think they do hold merit. I just want to add that your system cements the two party system, and I wonder if that's the wisest way to go. Also, and I just need to stress that, it's just a wonderful feeling to know your vote effectively counts for the party/person you voted for. 

Regional autonomy in certain areas could still protect state's rights.

A two party system is the most stable way of providing choice. There's no coalitions that come and go that theoretically cause more turmoil or political instability. 

That said, I think our system can withstand the increased uncertainty of a multi party system.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know what would solve the electoral college problem, still allow the states input in the executive, and potentially help issues between branches? Parliamentary system.

Let's abolish the federal courts too and go full Articles.

I personally like three separate branches.

[Benton]

(10-17-2017, 02:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  
Sure, Gerrymandering is a problem for Congress, but I was only arguing Presidential Election-wise with Bmore. I believe States need to each have their own say on that. If you've got 10 people in California and 8 say Ohio shouldn't be allowed to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, and Ohio has 4 people and 0 of them say Ohio shouldn't be allowed to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, the 8:2 for:against votes in California shouldn't negate the 0:4 for:against votes in Ohio and decide what happens to them.

But yes, as for Congress, something probably needs done.

Electors in some states are tied to congressional districts. Bubble gum aside, the districts have an impact in some states on both Congress and presidential elections. Bubblegum would fall under ballot proposition.

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 03:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Let's abolish the federal courts too and go full Articles.

I personally like three separate branches.

I do, too. I just don't like the way it is set up here.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: For that matter, even winning a Congress seat is extremely hard because the two parties send some of their money down to their party members at lower levels for them to run, too. Just this year there was a special election in Georgia for a congressional seat. The two parties combined for over $50m in spending. For just one of Georgia's 12 seats, and one of the US' 435 seats.

Yeah, I'd also get rid of that "only one seat" principle with all that gerrymandered voting districts. I would solve that by just abandoning those. Instead you'd get statewide lists, and all seats going to that states are filled according to that lists and the votes parties get in one state-wide election.
As soon as you vote for each seat individually, you have the two-party system, meaning a third party cannot win anything essential (like a seat). If all 12 Georgia seats were filled by one statewide election, roughly 8.5% of votes would constitute a seat, and the state's electorals' wishes would be represented way more accurately. And new powers would stand a chance, have a path to relevance. At least that's how I feel, but of course I'm accustomed to just that.

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Unless you can make some major campaign finance reform

Oh sure, that needs to be done first and foremost. I do not see a political will though, including the public. I loudly wonder about this here every other week.

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You might feel a bit difference on the wonderful feeling if each of the different areas in Austria had their own Constitution, and you had some extremist A-holes in some far away region deciding what should happen to your region, simply because your region isn't extremist or populous enough to stop theirs from deciding everything that will happen to you, for you.

I mean, the best example I can think that you'd understand is... could you imagine if every country in the EU went to a straight collective popular vote to decide a single leader for the EU? Though I guess it wouldn't be that different from it is now, where it seems like Germany pretty much runs the EU.

Point taken.
Is it so different now though? I get you're not quite the fan of Californian policy proposals, and fair enough, the example is valid in itself. But I could also understand a Californian saying his vote is downgraded by the system, as in an Ohio vote is way more valuable than their own vote (the Ohion vote actually is way more decisive in a tradtional swing state). And thinking about it, this is hard to refute. You're not the European Union, that doesn't have anything like a president and a parliament with legislative power the way America has.
Plus, you still have the Senate. And that this system favours states over electorates is obvious. California gets two Senators, the two Dakotas get four, there's nothing more to say to underline that point. The fairness of that is hard to grasp, unless you emphasize on a strong federalist alignment. But I feel the existence of the current Senate takes that into account and kind of uses up this aspect. Congress could very well be more for all people and not so much for all states without the states losing too much power (through the Senate and the Constitution).

Also, I think directly voting for a president is a bad idea to begin with. Congress should vote for one after big Congress elections. That way, a president can always work with a majority and get things passed (unless the majority is a republican one and the president is Trump, of course. But even though current events seem to contradict me, I still think that is a valid point).

(10-17-2017, 03:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A two party system is the most stable way of providing choice. There's no coalitions that come and go that theoretically cause more turmoil or political instability. 

That said, I think our system can withstand the increased uncertainty of a multi party system.

Well, after having the coice between Trump and Hillary I have serious doubts if you can keep this stance.
I'm not saying you should adapt the European system, which also has its flaws. Yours, however, drove half the population away from the voting booth. Additional political forces would do your country good, I believe.

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 03:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I'd also get rid of that "only one seat" principle with all that gerrymandered voting districts. I would solve that by just abandoning those. Instead you'd get statewide lists, and all seats going to that states are filled according to that lists and the votes parties get.
As soon as you vote for each seat individually, you have the two-party system, meaning a third party cannot win anything essential (like a seat). If all 12 Georgia seats were filled by one statewide election, roughly 8.5% of votes would constitute a seat, and the state's electorals' wishes would be represented way more accurately. And new powers would stand a chance, have a path to relevance. At least that's how I feel, but of course I'm accustomed to just that.

I just wanted to applaud the application/explanation of Duverger's Law, even if it wasn't named.

(10-17-2017, 03:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, after having the coice between Trump and Hillary I have serious doubts if you can keep this stance.
I'm not saying you should adapt the European system, which also has its flaws. Yours, however, drove half the population away from the voting booth. Additional political forces would do your country good, I believe.

It wasn't that choice that drove them away, voter turnout is notoriously low in this country all the time.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 03:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't that choice that drove them away, voter turnout is notoriously low in this country all the time.

I'm aware of that. I blame parts of that on the two-party system. Since the big parties in my country often advocate it, I wonder how I'd behave if only two parties were to be elected. While I see certain advantages of that system (I have to, I see the bad things happening with our alternative system, like the forming of coalitions I did not vote for), I might very well lose interest in voting as well. I would have lost it in my latest elections, where both big parties engaged in dirty campaigning and solution-free accusations.

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 03:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm aware of that. I blame parts of that on the two-party system. Since the big parties in my country often advocate it, I wonder how I'd behave if only two parties were to be elected. While I see certain advantages of that system (I have to, I see the bad things happening with our alternative system, like the forming of coalitions I did not vote for), I might very well lose interest in voting as well. I would have lost it in my latest elections, where both big parties engaged in dirty campaigning and solution-free accusations.

We shall see what happens. We have ranked choice voting cropping up in Maine, and it may happen elsewhere. This helps lend some credibility to alternative options as it makes votes for them less of a spoiling vote.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2017, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm representing these ideas as changes in a new constitution, playing off a thread Matt made a few weeks ago. The idea being that concept is antiquated. 


This is a bit of anachronism. The system was designed so that states could pick a way to assign electors or educated people to go to Congress and vote for the President. The idea of a popular vote for candidates isn't uniformly established for decades. Same with the allocation of electors within the state. 

The analogy also ignores the fact that with California's larger size and population comes greater diversity in demographics and needs. The issue is still rooted in your wanting to place importance in the idea of a state as a whole. Putting less importance on the idea of California as a state provides for more voices in California to be heard and their unique needs addressed, like the 1 in every 14 Trump voters who live in California.

Again, this is a hypothetical change and I'm only suggesting these changes occur within the Senate and in the Presidential election. It won't affect the representation of regions in addressing their needs, it just takes away the uneven voice given to small population states smaller than large cities. 

If anything there will be less extremism. The 4.5 million Trump voters in California would have their voices heard in both the Presidential election and the senatorial elections. You'll likely see more moderate candidates. 


I know. The issue isn't allocation, it's the fact that we use electoral votes. Why should a voter in Wyoming count the same as 3.5 voters in California?

Ah, see that is where we are split right from the get-go. I thought the whole "new Constitution" thing was silly. We don't need a new Constitution, we just need to enforce the current one once more. Not to mention if I am remembering correctly the whole premise of that thread was "but don't redo it while Republicans are in power", aka.. wait until Democrats take over, and then redo it. Lol... which would just be the same problem, but for the opposite side. There's no way that either party or even a mythical bipartisan effort could redo the Constitution in any kind of fair and impartial way that would make it better than it currently is written up.

Of course I want to place importance on the State as a whole. It's why we have States. When you join the National Guard, you join your State's military. When you get a driver's license, you get your State's license. You are protected by your State's Constitution. We're The United States of America, not the United Counties of America, or United Townships of America. Lol

You say that it's an uneven voice given to small population states, but that's not true. It's an importance placed on non-extremist/non-single-party population states. The current "Swing States" (US population ranking):
-Colorado (21st)
-Florida (3rd)
-Iowa (30th)
-Michigan (10th)
-Minnesota (22nd)
-Ohio (7th)
-Nevada (34th)
-New Hampshire (41st)
-North Carolina (9th)
-Pennsylvania (6th)
-Virginia (12th)
-Wisconsin (20th)

That's a pretty good sample of states from high-mid population.

If I have to choose between giving a larger voice to political extremist echo chambers, and giving a larger voice to the people who are open to choosing from both sides, I choose the latter. Mostly because I don't care that much for either party, so I don't want to be wedded to being extreme for one or the other.

A direct vote is just simply too much like mob mentality rule.

(10-17-2017, 03:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I'd also get rid of that "only one seat" principle with all that gerrymandered voting districts. I would solve that by just abandoning those. Instead you'd get statewide lists, and all seats going to that states are filled according to that lists and the votes parties get in one state-wide election.
As soon as you vote for each seat individually, you have the two-party system, meaning a third party cannot win anything essential (like a seat). If all 12 Georgia seats were filled by one statewide election, roughly 8.5% of votes would constitute a seat, and the state's electorals' wishes would be represented way more accurately. And new powers would stand a chance, have a path to relevance. At least that's how I feel, but of course I'm accustomed to just that.


Oh sure, that needs to be done first and foremost. I do not see a political will though, including the public. I loudly wonder about this here every other week.


Point taken.
Is it so different now though? I get you're not quite the fan of Californian policy proposals, and fair enough, the example is valid in itself. But I could also understand a Californian saying his vote is downgraded by the system, as in an Ohio vote is way more valuable than their own vote (the Ohion vote actually is way more decisive in a tradtional swing state). And thinking about it, this is hard to refute. You're not the European Union, that doesn't have anything like a president and a parliament with legislative power the way America has.
Plus, you still have the Senate. And that this system favours states over electorates is obvious. California gets two Senators, the two Dakotas get four, there's nothing more to say to underline that point. The fairness of that is hard to grasp, unless you emphasize on a strong federalist alignment. But I feel the existence of the current Senate takes that into account and kind of uses up this aspect. Congress could very well be more for all people and not so much for all states without the states losing too much power (through the Senate and the Constitution).

Also, I think directly voting for a president is a bad idea to begin with. Congress should vote for one after big Congress elections. That way, a president can always work with a majority and get things passed (unless the majority is a republican one and the president is Trump, of course. But even though current events seem to contradict me, I still think that is a valid point).

Hollo, the main reason why they don't have just a single state-wide election for seats is because I think you forget how big our states are sometimes.
Austria is ~84k square km and ~8.6m people.
Ohio is ~116k square km and ~11.6m people.
And Ohio is only the 31st largest and 7th most populous state out of the 50.

So the people in Cleveland, 400km away from Cincinnati, might be in the same state, but they have different needs/motivations/weather/economy. So it wouldn't make sense for people in Cleveland to be voting on who would represent Cincinnati's interests. It would be like Vienna voting on who should represent Lienz, being roughly the same distance apart. That's hardly a unique example, either. Tallahassee, FL to Miami, FL is 770km, but they're in the same state. That's why the Senators are two per state, but House is based off population and split.

So you're right that your idea would solve gerrymandering issues, but it'd create a lot of new issues in it's place. There needs to be a way of solving gerrymandering problems without removing the idea that each region of a state choosing their own House Reps.


Here is a map of Europe with an outline of the Continental US overlaid on it. So no Hawaii (16.6k sq km), and no Alaska (1.7m sq km).



PS: You better appreciate me using all your commie measurements of "kilometers".

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hollo, the main reason why they don't have just a single state-wide election for seats is because I think you forget how big our states are sometimes.
Austria is ~84k square km and ~8.6m people.
Ohio is ~116k square km and ~11.6m people.
And Ohio is only the 31st largest and 7th most populous state out of the 50.

I do know the US isn't Austria. Thanks for reminding me how small and unimportant we actually are though :)
Then again, India also holds nationwide votes.

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So the people in Cleveland, 400km away from Cincinnati, might be in the same state, but they have different needs/motivations/weather/economy. So it wouldn't make sense for people in Cleveland to be voting on who would represent Cincinnati's interests. It would be like Vienna voting on who should represent Lienz, being roughly the same distance apart. That's hardly a unique example, either. Tallahassee, FL to Miami, FL is 770km, but they're in the same state. That's why the Senators are two per state, but House is based off population and split.

OK, couple things. First, I guess not all issues are regional issues. Congress has to deal with nationwide laws influencing the whole nation, and foreign policy, the differences between Cleveland and Cincinnati should dissipate largely on most issues.
If any, I might even see these regional interests as disadvantageous. What didn't they try to get health care passed... one district gets that gimmy, another state some other gimmy, just so the regional guy votes in line. That's not particularly healthy and just promotes the need for dirty dealings like that, to the disadvantage of many.

Besides, Clevelanders can still vote for guys that have more Clevelandish solutions to problems. But if a region is only thinly populated and holds fewer souls, why should they get the same say as regions with more population. It's like rewarding smaller communities to the disadvantage of larger ones, and I do not think that's ideal democracy. When Cleveland has enogh voters so Cleveland ideas have to be considered, fine. If they don't, well, then Cleveland issues get less attention and that's just democracy. A Cleveland vote will always be counted and weighed just as much as any other vote from any other region, and I seriously believe that's all a Clevelander or anyone else really is entitled to or can ask for.

As for Vienna and Lienz, first of all I do not want Lienz to be influential and see no urgency to ensure the few souls there get their big share of say. Second, Lienz issues still can be solved in Lienz, I am not advocating to remove mayors or state governments. Regional policies, that's what these more regional governments are for. For nationwide issues, not so much.

Actually, here's roughly what we do. We basically have two lists for the parties, a regional one and a nationwide one. So you wouldn't really need to put a large state's vote into just one pot. You split the country in regions and calculate a number of votes in that districts that constitute a direct mandate. So let's say there are four seats in a region, 25% of votes in that region mean one seat is filled directly. The rest of the votes go to a national list (a list lead by Hillary and Trump, just to lay out the idea). So there's no danger that New York (or LA...) politicians take over disproportionally.

The reason I do not concur with your stance is that you could make that argument on any scale, be it in kilometres (yeah thanks for that, so open-minded :) ) or regarding population density etc. Districts of one city can have quite the different demographics, too. These differences don't necessarily apply to physical distances. I would guess that Cleveland's and Cincinnati's interests match way more than the interests of the countryside in between.

Also, you've acknowledged it, but I still think my idea deserves credit for solving gerrymandering. Something that could happen another way, problem is it wasn't solved by now, so there's a chance it never will be.

Having said all that, I do get your point still. Maybe there's a better solution than the one laid out. But I guess the status quo ain't that better solution.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 03:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I'd also get rid of that "only one seat" principle with all that gerrymandered voting districts. I would solve that by just abandoning those. Instead you'd get statewide lists, and all seats going to that states are filled according to that lists and the votes parties get in one state-wide election.
As soon as you vote for each seat individually, you have the two-party system, meaning a third party cannot win anything essential (like a seat). If all 12 Georgia seats were filled by one statewide election, roughly 8.5% of votes would constitute a seat, and the state's electorals' wishes would be represented way more accurately. And new powers would stand a chance, have a path to relevance. At least that's how I feel, but of course I'm accustomed to just that.



Oh sure, that needs to be done first and foremost. I do not see a political will though, including the public. I loudly wonder about this here every other week.



Point taken.
Is it so different now though? I get you're not quite the fan of Californian policy proposals, and fair enough, the example is valid in itself. But I could also understand a Californian saying his vote is downgraded by the system, as in an Ohio vote is way more valuable than their own vote (the Ohion vote actually is way more decisive in a tradtional swing state). And thinking about it, this is hard to refute. You're not the European Union, that doesn't have anything like a president and a parliament with legislative power the way America has.
Plus, you still have the Senate. And that this system favours states over electorates is obvious. California gets two Senators, the two Dakotas get four, there's nothing more to say to underline that point. The fairness of that is hard to grasp, unless you emphasize on a strong federalist alignment. But I feel the existence of the current Senate takes that into account and kind of uses up this aspect. Congress could very well be more for all people and not so much for all states without the states losing too much power (through the Senate and the Constitution).

Also, I think directly voting for a president is a bad idea to begin with. Congress should vote for one after big Congress elections. That way, a president can always work with a majority and get things passed (unless the majority is a republican one and the president is Trump, of course. But even though current events seem to contradict me, I still think that is a valid point).





Well, after having the coice between Trump and Hillary I have serious doubts if you can keep this stance.
I'm not saying you should adapt the European system, which also has its flaws. Yours, however, drove half the population away from the voting booth. Additional political forces would do your country good, I believe.

I'd prefer more parties, I'm just saying less is more stable. Trumps administration is a great example. Since he ran under one of the two parties, the safeguards of career politicians are there to ensure a smoother transition than if he were the member of a radical smaller party with no existing staff with experience to help.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Ah, see that is where we are split right from the get-go. I thought the whole "new Constitution" thing was silly. We don't need a new Constitution, we just need to enforce the current one once more. Not to mention if I am remembering correctly the whole premise of that thread was "but don't redo it while Republicans are in power", aka.. wait until Democrats take over, and then redo it. Lol... which would just be the same problem, but for the opposite side. There's no way that either party or even a mythical bipartisan effort could redo the Constitution in any kind of fair and impartial way that would make it better than it currently is written up.

Of course I want to place importance on the State as a whole. It's why we have States. When you join the National Guard, you join your State's military. When you get a driver's license, you get your State's license. You are protected by your State's Constitution. We're The United States of America, not the United Counties of America, or United Townships of America. Lol

You say that it's an uneven voice given to small population states, but that's not true. It's an importance placed on non-extremist/non-single-party population states. The current "Swing States" (US population ranking):
-Colorado (21st)
-Florida (3rd)
-Iowa (30th)
-Michigan (10th)
-Minnesota (22nd)
-Ohio (7th)
-Nevada (34th)
-New Hampshire (41st)
-North Carolina (9th)
-Pennsylvania (6th)
-Virginia (12th)
-Wisconsin (20th)

That's a pretty good sample of states from high-mid population.

If I have to choose between giving a larger voice to political extremist echo chambers, and giving a larger voice to the people who are open to choosing from both sides, I choose the latter. Mostly because I don't care that much for either party, so I don't want to be wedded to being extreme for one or the other.

A direct vote is just simply too much like mob mentality rule.

We have a great constitution, but 17 small updates to it (2 of which being related to drinking booze) over the last 230 years isn't enough in my opinion. There are struggle changes that I'd like to see. This is just a philosophical debate over the structure of government.

Whoever controls the federal government matters not. A change requires the states to agree.

The part about small states getting an uneven voice is true. There's really no arguing against that as the system was designed to ensure it. California gets 1 electoral vote for every 713,636 citizens. Wyoming gets 1 for every 195,167 citizens.

You misunderstood me and thought I was saying swing states are all small population states. I'm saying the system counts voters in small states more so than in big states. All voters should have an equal voice. That itself isn't mob rule.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-17-2017, 01:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Getting rid of the electoral college would be the very thing that let regional trends dictate for the whole. It would promote creating highly populated political echo-chambers

100% correct.  While I don't fully understand why larger cities/urban areas lean more liberal (although more diversity is as good a bet as any), many are undoubtedly influenced by the people and groups around them.

And those interests are best addressed in local and state govt.  The problem is people want the federal govt to impose their values on everyone else (and that applies to both liberals and conservatives).

People's problems are not with representation, or lack thereof, in federal govt.  It's with federal overreach and the subjugation of your state and local govt.  I don't think people really believe SF should be telling people of Akron how to "live".  I don't think people outside of major metro areas want to be ignored because their vote can't make a difference.

The concept of "one person, one vote" ignores the herd mentality...and a "minority" being overrun by the herd is precisely why the system was designed as it was.  Ignoring gerrymandering, the House is proportionate representation.  The Senate gives each state an equal voice.  And the POTUS is a combination of the two.  I happen to think that strikes a very good balance.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 06:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd prefer more parties, I'm just saying less is more stable. Trumps administration is a great example.

I have a hard time computing that.

(10-17-2017, 06:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Since he ran under one of the two parties, the safeguards of career politicians are there to ensure a smoother transition than if he were the member of a radical smaller party with no existing staff with experience  to help.

Yeah, that didn't make it much easier.
Hasn't Trumps administration, where staffers and professional politicians already left in astonishing numbers, still hundreds of appointments to fill? I ask that because we solve that problem by not changing too much staff in the first place. Just the heads, basically. While this is not ideal, it's still a better safeguard than hoping that big enough parties produce a sufficient number of capable people. I do not see that as a given, and even if it were someone still would need to choose them.

(10-17-2017, 07:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The concept of "one person, one vote" ignores the herd mentality...and a "minority" being overrun by the herd is precisely why the system was designed as it was.

Howgh.

I happen to not agree with that point at all. You cannot just tell a certain american citizen that his vote should count, albeit slightly, less because (s)he's part of a "highly populated echo chamber."
States rights are a completely different cup of tea. Federal overreach has nothing to do inherently with how the votes are counted though.

[Dill]

(10-17-2017, 07:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 100% correct.  While I don't fully understand why larger cities/urban areas lean more liberal (although more diversity is as good a bet as any), many are undoubtedly influenced by the people and groups around them.
balance.

Turn the question around and it might be easier to answer.   Why are rural areas more conservative? Less diversity, and people still influenced by the groups around them.

[Dill]

Thanks to BPat and Leonard for generating a great discussion.

I don't have much to say yet, but I much enjoy reading the solid points made by both sides.

I am from a rural state (Montana) but espouse "urban values." So I am pulled both directions in the electoral college debate.

The discussion brings to mind Madison's Federalist Paper No. 10, in which he talks about the difference between direct and representative democracy, and why the latter is better at balancing factions. His primary concern (or one at least) was to insure that a majority could not dominate a minority. Hence differing powers of senate and congress, of local and national elections etc. He also thought the size of the country (only 13 colonies back then) would prevent a majority from dominating. But he still seems worried about totally turning the reins of government over to "the people." Did he take seriously the possibility that a minority might dominate? I think he was nervous about what might happen if a demagogue with no knowledge of government massed enough voters behind a party to control all three branches of government, subordinating the whole to an unstable "faction."

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 08:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a hard time computing that.


Yeah, that didn't make it much easier.
Hasn't Trumps administration, where staffers and professional politicians already left in astonishing numbers, still hundreds of appointments to fill? I ask that because we solve that problem by not changing too much staff in the first place. Just the heads, basically. While this is not ideal, it's still a better safeguard than hoping that big enough parties produce a sufficient number of capable people. I do not see that as a given, and even if it were someone still would need to choose them.

When you only have two parties, elections tend to result in incumbents remaining in power and there being less major changes. They're able to build relationships with the opposing party far easier as there's only one opposing party to work with. The legislative process is more efficient as a result.

A lot of the earlier Trump administration staff was his people. As they have failed, more career Republicans have joined and you have stability under people like Kelly. Pence also played a role in this. Congressional Republicans have also been able to limit Trump's influence over legislation. 

I never said it was running smoothly, just that it's running smoother than it would under a multi party system

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 09:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When you only have two parties, elections tend to result in incumbents remaining in power and there being less major changes. They're able to build relationships with the opposing party far easier as there's only one opposing party to work with. The legislative process is more efficient as a result.

A lot of the earlier Trump administration staff was his people. As they have failed, more career Republicans have joined and you have stability under people like Kelly.

...who followed a career politician. Reince Priebus. I do know some things.
l do I do not mean to be cute, but I do not really see this new stability under Kelly. Or how things have turned significantly for the better. Granted, I do not follow every detail on the US domestic front, but Trump's appearances and erratic ways seem as large on display as ever, and stuff still leaks out left and right. But OK, that's just my impression.

The career politician Jeff Sessions wasn't really as stable as people like Tillerson or Mnuchin, who had their moments but overall helped keep some course. I don't know. I guess when a Trump comes along, career politicians are no guarantee things don't get out of hand. Still lots of time to go in this presidency, so too early for a verdict.

Overall, I consider it a thin argument for keeping the two party system in place. Since I know about my knowledge limitations as staded, I won't keep defending that particular stance though.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 10:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...who followed a career politician. Reince Priebus. I do know some things.
l do I do not mean to be cute, but I do not really see this new stability under Kelly. Or how things have turned significantly for the better. Granted, I do not follow every detail on the US domestic front, but Trump's appearances and erratic ways seem as large on display as ever, and stuff still leaks out left and right. But OK, that's just my impression.

The career politician Jeff Sessions wasn't really as stable as people like Tillerson or Mnuchin, who had their moments but overall helped keep some course. I don't know. I guess when a Trump comes along, career politicians are no guarantee things don't get out of hand. Still lots of time to go in this presidency, so too early for a verdict.

Overall, I consider it a thin argument for keeping the two party system in place. Since I know about my knowledge limitations as staded, I won't keep defending that particular stance though.

I said it more stable.

Sessions, despite some of his discriminatory positions, has actually established stability in the DOJ. He immediately recused himself from the Russia investigation and has been clear he wouldn't support removing Mueller from the investigation. 

Mnuchin has come under fire for taking trips on the tax payer's expense. Tillerson will likely be out in the coming weeks.