Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[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.