(americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/reason

[Breakyerself]

I would really like to find some people who think the reason this country is great is because it was founded by men of science. Then form a pac or a party around those kind of ideals. I would like to see a counterweight to the anti intellectualism that is prevelent in much of american politics and society. I want to find men of science and try to pursued them to pursue elected office. Could you imagine the improvements to the discourse if Neil DeGrass Tyson were a senator?

 

[DeistPaladin]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

I would really like to find some people who think the reason this country is great is because it was founded by men of science. Then form a pac or a party around those kind of ideals. I would like to see a counterweight to the anti intellectualism that is prevelent in much of american politics and society. I want to find men of science and try to pursued them to pursue elected office. Could you imagine the improvements to the discourse if Neil DeGrass Tyson were a senator?

I like the idea of a "Reason Party" but unfortunately our system has grown to become rigged against 3rd parties.

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

I like the idea of a "Reason Party" but unfortunately our system has grown to become rigged against 3rd parties.

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

I second that emotion.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

I like the idea of a "Reason Party" but unfortunately our system has grown to become rigged against 3rd parties.

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

I second that emotion.

You people are forgetting about the House and Senate (along with state governments). If a new third party started to win seats in the House and Senate, than that third party would have a much higher chance of winning the presidency. Granted, this will not happen over night. It will take many elections, but giving up on a third party because you do not like the Electoral College is not a good idea.

Furthermore, the House and Senate are the people that create the laws; there really is no point in getting a third party elected as president. It would be nice to have "Reason Party" in the House and Senate creating the laws.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

I would like the electoral college to be changed, but not abolished. It serves a real purpose. Without it, New York, Miami, and L.A. would be the only places that ever see a campaign presence and those three regions would control the national vote. What would an inner-city dweller know about farming issues? The electoral college allows smaller or more rural states (like those with farmers) to have a say also.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

I would like the electoral college to be changed, but not abolished. It serves a real purpose. Without it, New York, Miami, and L.A. would be the only places that ever see a campaign presence and those three regions would control the national vote. What would an inner-city dweller know about farming issues? The electoral college allows smaller or more rural states (like those with farmers) to have a say also.

Oh good, I was worried I was the only one who thought this. I dunno how to fix the problems (and maybe there's a necessary tension between the goods and the bads here, such that getting rid of the bad bits also gets rid of the good bits), but the reason the electoral college was introduced in the first place was so that the national government would have to pay attention to the smaller pieces of this very large country. In a sort of straight democracy policies that screw over wyoming but help texas, and california a lot might be wildly popular; we want to avoid those ills by giving the rest of the country some say.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

We badly need an amendment to our Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College and reforms the voting process.

I would like the electoral college to be changed, but not abolished. It serves a real purpose. Without it, New York, Miami, and L.A. would be the only places that ever see a campaign presence and those three regions would control the national vote. What would an inner-city dweller know about farming issues? The electoral college allows smaller or more rural states (like those with farmers) to have a say also.

This is often the reason cited to keep the EC around. The big problem with this argument is the only thing it changes is instead of "New York, Chicago and LA" (assuming that such places could even conceivably be a monolithic voting block), the places now are "Iowa, Ohio and Florida".

Show me a Presidential candidate of either party and I'll show you a person who's going to spend a lot of time in these "swing states" where the outcome is decided. We never see a candidate of either party here in Kentucky unless they've got a layover en route to someplace important to the EC.

As a Kentuckian, I have no voice in the primary because by the time it gets to me (May) it's all over. I have no voice in the final election either because my state is so red, there's no hope I can influence the outcome. Because of the "winner take all" system, if you win by 51/49, it's just as good as 99/1.

Concerns about the top cities dominating the election are overblown. In the first place, the people there, like anywhere else, are going to be divided in opinion and you won't capture every vote. Second, the combined populations of New York, Chicago and LA represent only 10% of the population. Even if you could capture every vote, it wouldn't be enough.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

We were taught in 9th-grade Government class that the EC was created because the Founders didn't trust the unwashed to elect a good President... :? not sure what the basis for that is though.

DP's swing state issue is obnoxious though. And as for cities deciding election, that doesn't seem any worse than Alaskans getting 3 votes to my 1.25 votes as a Marylander.

Is it possible for someone to concisely explain other electoral systems? I feel like any time I try to figure out what the UK does, it starts by assuming I know what they used to do and it just explains what's different.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

Is it possible for someone to concisely explain other electoral systems? I feel like any time I try to figure out what the UK does, it starts by assuming I know what they used to do and it just explains what's different.

It's quite simple, really. Without all the historical bumf... The national government is formed by the party with the largest number of MPs in the House of Commons, MPs being voted for directly usually every 4-5 years (the government can call an election at any time within a 5 year period) by their ever-shifting constituencies (governments usually mess about with them to ostensibly make them efficient, but usually to favour their own party). An MP must achieve a majority to win their constituency. The system is currently first past the post (most votes wins regardless of overall percentage) but a referendum on the alternative vote (voting with first, second, third preferences) is due in May.

The Prime Minister is usually the leader of whichever political party forms the government, but it's not a requirement.

The House of Lords is sort of, if you'll pardon the obviousness of the pun, a peer review process these days. Legislation passing through the Commons receives review by the peers of the realm, mostly hereditary members although there has been a slow march toward an elected chamber, and passed back to the Commons for re-imagining or passage into law. They are not elected directly by citizens.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own Parliaments with limited tax powers, although MPs are also sent from those countries (same constituencies) to the Westminister Parliament. Many English people moan about this despite referenda for their own rejecting the idea.

No one cares about MEPs and I doubt many can name any let alone vote for them. I can only think of three and I have an active interest...

Oh, and the Queen just sits on her arse. Her position is anachronistic hereditary.

 

[Breakyerself]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

I'm not surprised that this conversation very quickly became about the near impossibility of third party candidates getting elected. Anyone holding office right now who is a member of a third party is very much the exception to the rule. I think this makes our system susceptible to corruption because you essentially have two static targets and if you can compromise those two entities then you might as well own the government.

The reason that many experts give for this two party rut is first past the post elections. If your not sure why this kills third parties here is a cool little youtube video explaining it.



Believe it or not I've gotten a little inspiration that this can be fixed from the tea party. They are different enough from the republican party that they should probably be considered their own party. Hell they even have "party" in their title, but they didn't run on a "tea party" ticket. They knew that wouldn't work. So pragmatically they entered into republican primaries and won as insurgent candidates. This shows a clear path for other third parties to gain power in the future. The socialists, the green party, the libertarians and whoever else should all be running as insurgent candidates within the party that most closely resembles their policies. Then once a large enough block of these disparate insurgent groups has power they could put aside their differences for a constitutional caucus to change the united states electoral process from first past the post to an instant runoff or some other 3rd party friendly system. Then they could go back to tearing each other apart. Except they would have to form coalitions to get anything done and they would have to be smaller more agile organisms therefore harder to pin down by special interests and hopefully more responsive to the needs of the people.

amirite?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

It's quite simple, really. Without all the historical bumf... The national government is formed by the party with the largest number of MPs in the House of Commons, MPs being voted for directly usually every 4-5 years (the government can call an election at any time within a 5 year period) by their ever-shifting constituencies (governments usually mess about with them to ostensibly make them efficient, but usually to favour their own party). An MP must achieve a majority to win their constituency. The system is currently first past the post (most votes wins regardless of overall percentage) but a referendum on the alternative vote (voting with first, second, third preferences) is due in May.

So you vote whenever Parliament decides you should vote? But after a max of five years? Constituencies are geographic areas then, each with their own MP?

I think the part that most confuses me is how this system gets by with more than two parties. It doesn't really seem any more third-party friendly than the American system. Does it just boil down to history? The UK never got two parties so dominant that the others couldn't compete?

__

While I'd like to see changes to the US to enable third parties to compete, I think my higher priority is term limits on the legislature (is this traditionally a conservative issue? I feel like its one of the only places in which I agree with the TEA party). Hell, I think one term is plenty for the senate, maybe two for the house. Then they can think of what's good for the country instead of what's good for the people paying for their reelection campaigns.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: (americans) would you like a pol party founded on sci/re

So you vote whenever Parliament decides you should vote?

Nope, the Government decides

But after a max of five years?

Yes. I seem to recall talk of making fixed terms over the last year, but it's died out due to more pressing matters. I doubt if anything would've happened in this parliament anyway.

Constituencies are geographic areas then, each with their own MP?

Yes. Larger geographical areas for MEPs (European parliamentarians).

I think the part that most confuses me is how this system gets by with more than two parties. It doesn't really seem any more third-party friendly than the American system. Does it just boil down to history? The UK never got two parties so dominant that the others couldn't compete?

Well, while the FPTP system favours incumbents and established parties, it's not unheard of to have a number of independents and smaller parties get together to demand the larger parties listen or for large parties to split on ideological grounds; the 'British left' experienced a schism a couple of decades ago, and not until Tony Blair took over the Labour party in the mid-nineties was there a cohesive and determined left. Of course, Tony Blair is a LINO (lefty in name only), and we saw the rich get much richer and the poor kept in their place as a result of his premiership...

There have historically only been two strong parties, but these days we have MPs from the main three parties, (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats) alongside the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Féin (although they won't swear allegiance to the Queen so can't sit in Parliament) to name a few. They ally on some things and stand alone on others.

As you might be aware, we're having a referendum on the 5th of May to decide whether to change the voting system to AV (alternative vote), which if changed would give a slightly more representative voice to constituents.

While I'd like to see changes to the US to enable third parties to compete, I think my higher priority is term limits on the legislature (is this traditionally a conservative issue? I feel like its one of the only places in which I agree with the TEA party). Hell, I think one term is plenty for the senate, maybe two for the house. Then they can think of what's good for the country instead of what's good for the people paying for their reelection campaigns.

Wouldn't that be a treat