Are American Politics Broken?

[Dr Strangelove]

Bush jr winning while getting less votes than Al Gore is an example of American politics being broken, the guy who got less votes won.

Another from that same election would be Bush jr winning because the 1 million minority in a country of 300 million known as Cuban Americans deciding the election, if the whole issue of the Elian kid who was sent back to Cuba had never happened, Cuban Americans wouldn't have felt the need to punish democrats, and Al Gore would have won Florida, and Saddam would still rule Iraq.

If you change the electoral system, you change the politics, you would have more political parties too

Cuban Americans will always hate the Democrats because John Kennedy didn't back them up at the Bay of Pigs with the full weight of the entir United States military.

[C0ckney]

Except that I didn't say that I supported proportional representation. I said I supported a preferential voting system. That's where you vote for your preferred candidate, but if he doesn't get enough votes to win a seat, your vote passes to your next preferred candidate, and so on. It does away with the need for a runoff, for example.

no i agreed with your criticisms of the first past the post system and expressed my support for a proportional system.

I have not read much on it myself but my understanding was that French politics under the proportional system was widely regarded as quite corrupt and De Gaulle is credited with creating a representative democratic model in France with individual MPs accountable to individual constituencies. This reduces corruption by making it harder for dirty candidates to win a seat by gaining the local public's support (as opposed to the generalised support that voters might give to a given party).

i'm not sure what you mean by corruption, but there's no reason to suppose that a proportional system would encourage corruption any more than a FPTP system.

the majority of countries in europe have proportional systems and they work well. it does have one big problem, namely that it severs the link between the constituency and the MP (although this often the case as well under FPTP as parties impose candidates on local constituencies). however it does allow people to actually express their political preferences in a meaningful way and prevents tactical voting. it really depends on what you consider more important.

Third party candidates really only exist in two cases: (1) where the national or local branch of the dominant two centre parties are so corrupt or out of touch that the voters won't want them; (2) on the fringes of the political spectrum. If the two dominant parties are clean the third party may exist briefly but won't get momentum. It will be squeezed out of existence. The fringe parties are simply a byproduct of ideological disagreements.

i'm afraid that this completely false. if you look at europe you can find several mainstream parties in the same country with different political viewpoints. what tends to happen in countries with the FPTP system is that these various viewpoints are contained (or subsumed, depending on your viewpoint) in two 'big tent' parties.

[notyoueither]

i'm not sure what you mean by corruption, but there's no reason to suppose that a proportional system would encourage corruption any more than a FPTP system.

I would suppose a higher number of party toadies get in using party lists, no?

I can see that leading to an appearance of greater corruption.

the majority of countries in europe have proportional systems and they work well. it does have one big problem, namely that it severs the link between the constituency and the MP (although this often the case as well under FPTP as parties impose candidates on local constituencies). however it does allow people to actually express their political preferences in a meaningful way and prevents tactical voting. it really depends on what you consider more important.

That's the largest problem. The lack of representation for constituents. To solve one problem you undermine what to me is the most important function of our legislatures.

[OzzyKP]

Except that I didn't say that I supported proportional representation. I said I supported a preferential voting system. That's where you vote for your preferred candidate, but if he doesn't get enough votes to win a seat, your vote passes to your next preferred candidate, and so on. It does away with the need for a runoff, for example.

I have not read much on it myself but my understanding was that French politics under the proportional system was widely regarded as quite corrupt and De Gaulle is credited with creating a representative democratic model in France with individual MPs accountable to individual constituencies. This reduces corruption by making it harder for dirty candidates to win a seat by gaining the local public's support (as opposed to the generalised support that voters might give to a given party).

Definitely better then proportional representation or standard FPTP.

[Zevico]

Incidentally, I don't think American politics are broken. You have a functioning democratic society. tWhether it will meet and resolve some of its problems is another matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the largest problem. The lack of representation for constituents. To solve one problem you undermine what to me is the most important function of our legislatures.

Indeed. That is a major issue. That's why I agree that preferential voting is preferable. Or a blend - continue to have the current FPTP with preferential voting and add 100 more representatives selected by Proportional Representation, a blend kind of like the German system. Though that may get a bit too complicated at least in the beginning years.

[Wezil]

Meh. Our local MPs don't represent their constituents now. What is the loss?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/matt-gurney-semi-rogue-tory-mp-shouldnt-underestimate-caucus-unrest/

They are already beholden to their party. Let's ditch the facade of local representation and be honest about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno about that. Democratic Representatives from my state of Georgia (they do exist, though their numbers had been culled quite a bit in the 2010 elections) may disagree about just being beholden to their party. The term Blue Dog defines 'em.

[Wezil]

I realise your Reps will vote against their party more often than our MPs will. Our system is broken by the sea of trained seals voting party lines ("nobodies" as a former PM referred to MPs). Your system is broken for other reasons.

For us, FPTP just results in false majorities with dictatorial rule for 4 years.

[OzzyKP]

That's what is nice about the US. Generally our Reps. and Senators don't march lock step with the party. So while we only have two parties on paper, in reality we have many more voting blocks and viewpoints. Which gives us huge diversity in Congress despite the letter people put next to their name.

[Wezil]

$$$$$$ seems to be your driving force.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, our (US) problems mostly revolve around the ridiculous amount of power that money has on our political processes. Well that and the idea that we need to demonize the other side.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn you, Wezil!!!

[Wezil]

You see it in the Walker thread. Lots of talk about the money of unions vs money of corporations. Not much talk about the citizens....

[OzzyKP]

You can't solve the money issue though. Elections are just expensive. We've got too many damn people/voters in this country. Reaching them all with a message costs a lot of money.