• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
columbus said:
But this benefits the-powers-that-be. Like the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.
In any given state, the party that holds a majority in the legislature can usually expect at least 51% of the vote to go to their presidential preference. By making it a winner take all system, the presidential candidate can ignore the voters who probably won't have any impact on the election.
There are a few "swing" states. But mostly the results are determined, in favor of whichever party holds the legislature. That totally works for partisan leadership.
Tom
Click to expand...
Even with proportional electors the system would still favor two strong parties. What we would need to break that up a bit would be some sort of proportional election in the House and Senate.

As an example of being able to ignore a bunch of people - it would have been possible to remove Trump from office with the support of less than 1/3 of the population (51% of 2/3 of the states - with the senate being weighted towards low population states it could be much lower than 1/3). It would have to be the right 1/3, but still, something seems off.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
SoyLeche said:
Even with proportional electors the system would still favor two strong parties.
Click to expand...
To a degree this is true.
But I believe that one result of counting every vote equally would be a more engaged and informed electorate. Lots of people don't much bother, because there's nothing in it if their vote won't matter anyway.
Tom
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
columbus said:
To a degree this is true.
But I believe that one result of counting every vote equally would be a more engaged and informed electorate. Lots of people don't much bother, because there's nothing in it if their vote won't matter anyway.
Tom
Click to expand...
Note: I was talking specifically about the Presidential election. Not sure if that was clear.

I personally don't think you can under-estimate the amount of engagement of the general electorate, and I doubt the form of voting would change much of that.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
SoyLeche said:
Note: I was talking specifically about the Presidential election. Not sure if that was clear.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing.
The Presidential race gets massive coverage. It's in your face for most of a year. It could energize and motivate people. But if you live in most states you know your vote won't matter. Trump would have to bang Hillary onstage to lose in Indiana, or Barron.
It won't matter at all, to the biggest media circus of the year, whether I know anything or not.
Whether I vote or not. There's just nothing in it.
Tom
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
columbus said:
Here's the thing.
The Presidential race gets massive coverage. It's in your face for most of a year. It could energize and motivate people. But if you live in most states you know your vote won't matter. Trump would have to bang Hillary onstage to lose in Indiana, or Barron.
It won't matter at all, to the biggest media circus of the year, whether I know anything or not.
Whether I vote or not. There's just nothing in it.
Tom
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why making the congress more proportional would be the way to make real change as far as the two big parties goes.

It probably wouldn't work just to have some sort of ranked-choice voting in each district (although I would still support that). It would be better to somehow split all of the states representatives up by party proportionally in a state-wide election. More like how I understand most Parlimentary systems work.

The difficulty then comes in deciding exactly who the representatives would be. Not sure how best to do that.

And none of this is going to happen anytime soon anyway.
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
I'd also support the states moving towards more of a proportional distribution in their own governments, and for the Senate to go back to being appointed rather than elected. It seems weird to me that the government of South Korea has an official representative in Washington DC in the form of an ambassador, but the government of South Carolina has no representative at all. It's another result of us becoming "The United States" instead of "These United States".
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
SoyLeche said:
It probably wouldn't work just to have some sort of ranked-choice voting in each district (although I would still support that). It would be better to somehow split all of the states representatives up by party proportionally in a state-wide election. More like how I understand most Parlimentary systems work.
Click to expand...
I would like a more parliamentary system in DC. Our system is quite obsolete.

Although, I used to envy GB's parliament. But since Brexit, not so much.
Tom
 
dianaiad

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
It's not at all like China dictating to the US what cultures should be and how to live. Whether a person lives in New York or Arkansas, they're still American citizens, living in the USA.
The comparison doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Speaks someone who has NO idea how different the cultures are between, say, LA, New York, Utah, Texas, the midwest, etc.

Just because we sort of speak the same language? Hey. Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA all speak English, but even the language experts acknowledge the difference in cultures...and call them 'different Englishes,'

Do you honestly believe that the culture of the kid who grows up in Wyoming, in a village of 1500, has the same culture as the kid who lives in a high rise in New York where his building has more people?

Believe me, I know what that sort of culture shock is like. I went from a town where the entire school district, K-12, had 780 kids in it, to a high school in California which was larger than some colleges. My graduating class had 3200 kids in it. From one high school. I'm telling you....the culture was very, very different.

So yeah, it would, save for the language, be very like China dictating to the USA what WE should do, simply because they have more people.
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
dianaiad said:
Speaks someone who has NO idea how different the cultures are between, say, LA, New York, Utah, Texas, the midwest, etc.

Just because we sort of speak the same language? Hey. Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA all speak English, but even the language experts acknowledge the difference in cultures...and call them 'different Englishes,'

Do you honestly believe that the culture of the kid who grows up in Wyoming, in a village of 1500, has the same culture as the kid who lives in a high rise in New York where his building has more people?

Believe me, I know what that sort of culture shock is like. I went from a town where the entire school district, K-12, had 780 kids in it, to a high school in California which was larger than some colleges. My graduating class had 3200 kids in it. From one high school. I'm telling you....the culture was very, very different.

So yeah, it would, save for the language, be very like China dictating to the USA what WE should do, simply because they have more people.
Click to expand...
That’s a good reason why the state governments should have a larger impact on the citizens than the federal.

It’s not really a great reason why the rural people should have more effective votes in the presidential election though.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
dianaiad said:
Speaks someone who has NO idea how different the cultures are between, say, LA, New York, Utah, Texas, the midwest, etc.

Just because we sort of speak the same language? Hey. Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA all speak English, but even the language experts acknowledge the difference in cultures...and call them 'different Englishes,'

Do you honestly believe that the culture of the kid who grows up in Wyoming, in a village of 1500, has the same culture as the kid who lives in a high rise in New York where his building has more people?

Believe me, I know what that sort of culture shock is like. I went from a town where the entire school district, K-12, had 780 kids in it, to a high school in California which was larger than some colleges. My graduating class had 3200 kids in it. From one high school. I'm telling you....the culture was very, very different.

So yeah, it would, save for the language, be very like China dictating to the USA what WE should do, simply because they have more people.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who has NO idea that many large countries consist of many different people from all different walks of life, cultures, ethnicities, socioeconomic classes, etc


The reason I don't think your comparison works is, because in the end, all of those people are still Americans. They all still inhabit an entire country that was built on specific values. So while someone living in Missouri may have a much different perspective than a person living in New York, they're still both Americans, they're subject to the same Constitution and the values/rights enumerated therein, they all speak the same language (though accents and dialects vary like they do in any country, English is still the language being spoken). They do all, in fact, share a culture - an American culture.
So no, I don't see how it's at all the same as a foreign power dictating to another country what it should be doing and I don't see why it supports the notion that rural votes should hold more weight in presidential elections.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
columbus said:
I would like a more parliamentary system in DC. Our system is quite obsolete.
Click to expand...

You have one... The only difference is States elect Senators instead of Senators being appointed. France, UK, Germany and Canada all have the upper houses selected not elected.

Although, I used to envy GB's parliament. But since Brexit, not so much.
Tom
Click to expand...

House of Lords is selected, inherits or merely gains a seat due to a rank outside of elected government.

You are advocating the opposite of what you think. You advocate a reduction of citizens being involved in government by push one house completely into politicians hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top