To be fair, the emergence of two parties has everything to do with the first past the post voting rules. First past the post (majority vote in single member districts) always leads to smaller numbers of represented parties in the legislature. I would change our voting rules, personally... ___________________________________________________________ https://www.facebook.com/ConstitutionalConventionofWethePeople/ One issue that I see is a problem with apportionment, specifically that our elected officials represent too many people. A related topic is the lack of representation given to smaller parties than the Democrats and Republicans. According to the academic literature, small parties tend to be discounted when a country uses "first past the post" (majority vote of a single member district) election rules. One fairly simple change could serve to bring apportionment to levels enjoyed by other countries as well as to bring smaller parties into Congress and thus into the national conversation and legislative decision making process. Legislative scholars use a general rule of thumb that the number of representatives should be roughly equivalent to the cube root of the population being represented. With the population of the United States at over 320 million, this rule would result in about 684 members of Congress, compared to the 535 we have today (435 House members and 100 Senators). I would add 150 House members, but elect them as the representatives of parties, rather than of particular districts. The way it would work is much the same way as legislative elections do in Germany. In addition to the representative for their district, voters would vote for a party. The parties would provide lists of people to serve as party representatives, who would then be apportioned according to the national vote such that the House of Representatives would contain roughly equivalent proportions of each party reaching a floor level of support (Germany and New Zealand set this level at 5%). In this type of system, smaller parties end up with a voice in the legislature that they are not afforded today. Many in this country seem to feel as if their voices are not represented by Democrats and Republicans. Those who support the TEA Party, Libertarian Party, or Green Party find their issues ignored by the major parties and may feel forced to vote for people who don't represent their interests. Electing people to represent party interests will help to bring those parties' interests into the national conversation and could force the major parties to build coalitions with others.
First, the European model tends toward the fragmentation of the party system. A two-party system seems to fit us better (IMO). Second, and more important, is that when "parties ... provide lists f people to serve as party representatives," there is almost immediately a tyranny of "the masses." The parties would never nominate "trouble makers" -- only people willing to do the bidding of the party leader and under leaders. (We seem to have adopted the socialist term "solidarity" already. Would "commissar" be next? We would get the Clinton system on steroids, i.e. there will always be two sets of rules for the two classes of people, the "haves" and the "have nots." We see how Hillary does not have to follow the rules that the little people, even generals, must follow. It would be far worse under your system, because little Hillaries would abound in the party systems.
How is it a conflict of interest? People mix the two ALL THE TIME. It's not a conflict of interest if you are not taking ANY money from the charity you run. You must not know much about the business world to have this kind of thinking. Business is all about relationships. You make relationships in many different ways. And you do deals with the people you know. Friends, relatives, college roommates, people you met at events, favors - it is just the nature of how the world works. I mean - it's so weird. Here you have all these corporations giving money to politicians campaigns in order to essentially buy their vote and you have no problem with that but you have a problem with someone doing a favor for someone who donated to a charity??? And there isn't any proof that the person was actually given any favor.
You're not very smart, are you? You run a charity. You work for a company where you decide which vendor you choose among several. One company delivers the best proposal to the company you work for but you choose another vendor with a worse offer because they donate money to your charity. Your company just got screwed because you looked out for your charity. No need to respond as it obvious you don't have a clue.
Wow. And people like yourself dont understand why the business world cringes when liberals feel the urge to regulate them. You have the audacity to say "You must not know much about this business world .... ". For starters, the business world and government world are very two different animals. If you run Billy Bob's Guitar and Underwater Basket Weaving shop, yes, you can do whatever you want. However most respectable business require multiple quotes from vendors. They often forbid any type of considerations, whether its cash or gifts. This prevents the good ol boy system and fraud. Business 101. The governments holds these same standards. The only difference is its required, not recommended. Any deviations from this will land someone w/out a job and possibly prosecution for fraud. Pay to play is expressly forbidden, whether its donations to a charity, cash considerations, gifts, lunch at McDonalds or a bag of skittles and iced tea. Just a reminder, we are talking about Hillary Clinton, not some business executive. And we are not talking about some insignificant courtesy lunch at a fancy restaurant.
Really? You don't think a TEA Party candidate would represent your interests more fully than a Republican? I am firmly of the opinion that a Libertarian candidate would represent mine most closely than either of the major parties. The parties would themselves be the "trouble makers" in the context of contemporary American politics. From the perspective of the Republicans and Democrats, they would be the very definition of "trouble makers." They don't in other places with proportional representation, but feel free to trust your assumptions over long established fact.
We really do need to meet for breakfast one day. Maybe you would let me try on your rose colored glasses.
No rose colored glasses at all, I'm just telling you how other countries have created electoral rules that result in more parties having representation in the legislature.
Dude, what happened to your Tea Party infiltration of the Democratic Party? Seems that's not going well.
As I said, this country gravitates to a two party system. Factions can, and do, exist in each party. That how we roll. This is not Europe, and I hope it never will be.
Dude, there is no Tea Party. There are tea parties. Multiple. As in more than one. A lot more than one. Together, they form a movement that now supports Donald Trump. And, yes, I still participate in several tea parties. As for my infiltration of the Democratic Party, I still do that. However, I work as hard as I can for the GOP. Trump is not my choice for the Republican nominee, but he won fair and square. Therefore, I support him 100 percernt. At least I don't have to hold my nose when I consider what would happen if a crooked Hillary were elected.
Naw, I'm slimmer and there's never a yellow ribbon tied to my old oak tree. I'm afraid it might fall off. :grin:
All countries with first past the post electoral rules gravitate to a two party system. It isn't about 'murca, it is about the electoral rules we put in place and is the same in other places which use first past the post.
