Ed Electoral College

WilliamSeger said:
If Trump, Cruz, Bush, Clinton, Sanders and Rand all ran for different parties, who do you think would win?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with what I said? Canadian elections have more than two major parties and we've never had major problems with this system. Somehow we manage to get things done.
 
Argumemnon said:
Entirely expected, I'd say. Just because we're moderates trying real hard to not rush to judgment doesn't mean we'll reach the same conclusions or communicate effectively.
Click to expand...

Well, I always commonucate efficaciously. Must be you.
 
Argumemnon said:
What does this have to do with what I said? Canadian elections have more than two major parties and we've never had major problems with this system. Somehow we manage to get things done.
Click to expand...

My point was, what "major problems" do you think would be solved by a multi-party system in the US?
 
WilliamSeger said:
My point was, what "major problems" do you think would be solved by a multi-party system in the US?
Click to expand...

I have not said, implied or thought that major problems would be solved except the one that I mentioned: you would have choices for the actual left, and perhaps a more moderate party willing to compromise between the two extremes, to name a few examples.
 
WilliamSeger said:
My point was, what “major problems” do you think would be solved by a multi-party system in the US?
Click to expand...

The US usually has two centre-right parties fighting over presidency, what would be wrong bringing socialist values into the mix?
Having two parties only split by beliefs in science and religion isn't much of a choice.
'It's between a pro-choice candidate or a climate change denier hmm.'
This election cycle has seen one party goose-step itself over to the far-right, to the extent where suggesting empathy towards a minority gets you a labelled a leftist, up there with humanitarians like Stalin and Mao, but policy wise on say Obamacare, nothing's gonna change, it hadn't been made free under the previous president, the pricing is just gonna change, something Clinton said she would do anyway.
So what would be the issue of a party that was actually left wing, actually trying to change social values for all.
 
Multi-party systems tend to only rarely award an outright majority to a single party. Thus, coalitions are needed to form a government. Coalitions inherently require the members to set aside their differences and work on policies that are supported by all the coalition members. Fringe or extreme ideas have to get put aside in order to keep the peace in the coalition. If you piss off your coalition partner(s), they might link up with other parties and change the makeup of the majority coalition.

It tends to reduce the wild swings in policies that happen in a two-party system.

We also have other issues, as well. A single representative per district rather than a delegation that would reflect the range of views, for example. How 1 person who is beholden to their party for career advancement can possibly represent the interests of 700,000 people with diverse opinions is a big problem.
 
Argumemnon said:
I have not said, implied or thought that major problems would be solved except the one that I mentioned: you would have choices for the actual left, and perhaps a more moderate party willing to compromise between the two extremes, to name a few examples.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those six candidates were some of the choices in the primaries with recognizably different ideologies, so what difference would you expect if they each led a different party? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm trying to understand your remark about polarization calling into question the two-party system. There was a lot of polarization within both parties, too, and the primary voters decided.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yes, but those six candidates were some of the choices in the primaries with recognizably different ideologies, so what difference would you expect if they each led a different party? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm trying to understand your remark about polarization calling into question the two-party system.
Click to expand...

Well, that's pretty much it: it lumps ideologies together, drowning out the moderates. Maybe if Rubio and Cruz and Trump were in different parties the more moderate one would've had enough votes to force a coalition with the more extreme victor, or had enough votes to win a majority themselves, etc.
 
Argumemnon said:
Excuse me, but there is nothing in the concept of democracy that requires a majority of the eligible population to support a single party in order for that party to have a mandate. What about states with more than two major parties?

In fact, the only thing that democracy implies is power from the people. That's it. That says nothing about how that power translates into the processes of government.

Hell, I'd argue that too much democracy is just about as bad as too little.
Click to expand...
Are you defending FPTP voting?

Do you argue against systems such as runoff voting, proportional representation or similar voting systems?
 
I think the issue with the 2 party system is not so much that you end with a President from one of the 2 parties, but you end up with Congress made up of only 2 parties.

Current congress has what...2 independents?

There are definitely pros and cons, but if congress was made up of 4 or more parties with reasonable representation for each, compromise and collaboration would be a requirement, not just a matter of last resort.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, that's pretty much it: it lumps ideologies together, drowning out the moderates. Maybe if Rubio and Cruz and Trump were in different parties the more moderate one would've had enough votes to force a coalition with the more extreme victor, or had enough votes to win a majority themselves, etc.
Click to expand...

That strategy was effectively tried in the final few Republican primaries and Trump's "party" still won, so Trump would still be leader. He will still have to deal with (and probably compromise with) the other "parties" in the Republican Congressional "coalition," so I don't see much difference there, either.
 
Argumemnon said:
Read my post again. Your questions have nothing to do with the post you quoted.
Click to expand...


OK here is the full context. If you are not defending a simple "plurality of votes" then I don't know what you are arguing about.
Argumemnon said:
psionl0 said:
uke2se said:
psionl0 said:
No it wouldn't. A system that elects somebody who got less than half of the votes cast is not democratic.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Plurality of votes is good enough for most of us.
Click to expand...
So you are not really interested in democracy. You just want a system that gives the candidate of your choice a greater chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but there is nothing in the concept of democracy that requires a majority of the eligible population to support a single party in order for that party to have a mandate. What about states with more than two major parties?

In fact, the only thing that democracy implies is power from the people. That's it. That says nothing about how that power translates into the processes of government.

Hell, I'd argue that too much democracy is just about as bad as too little.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
That strategy was effectively tried in the final few Republican primaries and Trump's "party" still won, so Trump would still be leader. He will still have to deal with (and probably compromise with) the other "parties" in the Republican Congressional "coalition," so I don't see much difference there, either.
Click to expand...

But he doesn't have to make coalitions because the other Republicans want to maintain party integrity. Without that, he'd have to make alliances with someone, and if everybody hated him, he'd fail, and he couldn't pass his laws.
 
psionl0 said:
OK here is the full context. If you are not defending a simple "plurality of votes" then I don't know what you are arguing about.
Click to expand...

It's quite clear in the post you quoted twice now. I am saying that your characterisation of this system as undemocratic is wrong. I'm not defending, championing or arguing for or against any of those systems. I am correcting your error.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's quite clear in the post you quoted twice now. I am saying that your characterisation of this system as undemocratic is wrong. I'm not defending, championing or arguing for or against any of those systems. I am correcting your error.
Click to expand...
Huh. All that stuff about states with more than two major parties is pretty irrelevant if all you are arguing about is the dictionary definition of democracy.

Unless it is your argument that DT was elected democratically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom