Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frankly, the 17th Amendment got it wrong.

It should've been used to allow popular vote for President and kept states Congress to electing federal Senators.

 whembly wrote:
Frankly, the 17th Amendment got it wrong.

It should've been used to allow popular vote for President and kept states Congress to electing federal Senators.

hrm, thats an interesting thought. From what I recall, the 17th was enacted after the state legislatures and local party machinery basically were caught being naughty one too many times, though my memory is somewhat hazy in that count. I think personally id still be for their direct election, but if any federal representation was going to be left to state legislatures, the Senate probably makes the most sense.


On another note, we've made it to page six without spilling blood or a lock, good job all!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which doesn't mean that the US isn't a Democracy, only that it isn't a specific type of democracy. Fair enough on the comparison to parliamentary systems though.

The parties frequently run the country as if it is a parliamentary system though, which is what makes me often pretty frustrated.

Paul Ryan stated that as the Speaker of the House, he represents the Republican Party and their voices and desires, which is frankly incorrect. He represents all the individual representatives as well as the House of Representatives as a whole. The Speaker of the House is not the de-facto leader of whatever party is in the majority. They already have a Majority Leader and a Majority Whip, in the same vein as the Minority Leader and Minority Whip.

And during the recent issues with healthcare, tax-cuts, and especially funding, we had multiple times where the Senate (and sometimes the House) had plans and compromises, and then they met with Trump who declared that he didn't like this or that, and then the plan fell through. Bills are developed by Presidents, and then shaped by what Presidents want, and the Senate then ends up passing nothing rather than passing something that Trump doesn't agree with. But it shouldn't matter what a President wants as far as drafting a bill and moving it through the process is concerned. Yeah, it's helpful if you got the support of the POTUS, but at the same time he doesn't really have a say until the end where he can sign it or veto it. We often treat the POTUS as if he is a Prime Minister, serving as leadership of the party in power in the legislative chambers, and won't move forward with the legislative process if he doesn't like something. Republicans in the House and Senate need to step-up and decide that they are their own co-equal branch of the Government and pass whatever bill they want, and then Trump can either man-up and veto it or he can design to sign it. Right now he gets to derail whatever bill he wants, and (rightfully) blame the lack of legislative process on the legislature because they didn't pass anything.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which doesn't mean that the US isn't a Democracy, only that it isn't a specific type of democracy. Fair enough on the comparison to parliamentary systems though.

For sure, a republic utilizes democratic mechanisms, I just think it's important to analyze the system we're talking about.

For example: I lived in the UK for two years and I am personally unaware of a situation where a set of laws, such as Firearm regulations, might differ drastically between say, Greater London, and Surrey or Kent. {this is not a gun-laws phishing exercise, its just the first example I could think of}. In the U.S. one can abide the firearm laws of their particular state, cross over a border, and immediately be in violation of the new state's local laws [concealed carry for example].

IF MY EXAMPLE OF LAWS BETWEEN PROVINCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS WRONG -- Please let me know with references! I'm happy to learn new stuff

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which doesn't mean that the US isn't a Democracy, only that it isn't a specific type of democracy. Fair enough on the comparison to parliamentary systems though.

For sure, a republic utilizes democratic mechanisms, I just think it's important to analyze the system we're talking about.

For example: I lived in the UK for two years and I am personally unaware of a situation where a set of laws, such as Firearm regulations, might differ drastically between say, Greater London, and Surrey or Kent. {this is not a gun-laws phishing exercise, its just the first example I could think of}. In the U.S. one can abide the firearm laws of their particular state, cross over a border, and immediately be in violation of the new state's local laws [concealed carry for example].

IF MY EXAMPLE OF LAWS BETWEEN PROVINCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS WRONG -- Please let me know with references! I'm happy to learn new stuff

You also have to keep the size of what you are talking about in mind. If you are talking about laws being the same when moving between London and Kent, it would probably be more like comparing driving between different counties in the same State.

I don't know about the specifics, but I think that there can be some laws that apply specifically, and which may differ, between England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland rather than the UK as a whole.

If I might throw something else into the mix here: Something that I thoroughly LOVE about elections in the UK are the laws(?) stipulating that national elections can only last 90 days. I dream of a world where national elections in the US don't last... what, 2 years now?? Who knows. Thoughts??

Well this is creepy and honestly pretty scummy

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/media/2018/04/02/sinclair-defends-itself-over-uproar-after-local-news-anchors-read-anti-false-news-screed/477531002/

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:
If I might throw something else into the mix here: Something that I thoroughly LOVE about elections in the UK are the laws(?) stipulating that national elections can only last 90 days. I dream of a world where national elections in the US don't last... what, 2 years now?? Who knows. Thoughts??

I would like that too. Keep campaigning concentrated to within 3 months of Election Day.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:
If I might throw something else into the mix here: Something that I thoroughly LOVE about elections in the UK are the laws(?) stipulating that national elections can only last 90 days. I dream of a world where national elections in the US don't last... what, 2 years now?? Who knows. Thoughts??

I would like that too. Keep campaigning concentrated to within 3 months of Election Day.

3 months for main election and 2 or 3 for the primary seem like a good amount

Just make the election Ranked Choice for an instant runoff and get rid of the primary.

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which doesn't mean that the US isn't a Democracy, only that it isn't a specific type of democracy. Fair enough on the comparison to parliamentary systems though.

For sure, a republic utilizes democratic mechanisms, I just think it's important to analyze the system we're talking about.

For example: I lived in the UK for two years and I am personally unaware of a situation where a set of laws, such as Firearm regulations, might differ drastically between say, Greater London, and Surrey or Kent. {this is not a gun-laws phishing exercise, its just the first example I could think of}. In the U.S. one can abide the firearm laws of their particular state, cross over a border, and immediately be in violation of the new state's local laws [concealed carry for example].

IF MY EXAMPLE OF LAWS BETWEEN PROVINCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS WRONG -- Please let me know with references! I'm happy to learn new stuff

You might want to consider the size of the UK versus say California or Montana. It's more of a size issue than a federalization issue. I would point out that for the longest time there were very distinct weapon laws between North Ireland and the rest of the UK. Once you have enough territory you end up running into problems where culture/territory group A has very different values and legal desires than culture/territory group B.

This thread’s going pretty well, isn’t it?

 d-usa wrote:
Just make the election Ranked Choice for an instant runoff and get rid of the primary.

We’ve never been required to have any primaries at all, they’re strictly a political party process independent of the need to elect people to office. Nobody has to pay any attention or credence to Democrats or Republicans we’ve always been able to vote however we want and the Parties have always been able to choose their candidates however they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And regardless of whether it changes the amout of states being focussed on it lets more people's votes actually matter.

In a straight up popular vote involving 120 million voters or more every vote is always going to be equally important or equally meaningless.

Besides we don’t actually vote for the presidential candidates we vote to select Electors who vote in the Electoral College on our behalf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:
If I might throw something else into the mix here: Something that I thoroughly LOVE about elections in the UK are the laws(?) stipulating that national elections can only last 90 days. I dream of a world where national elections in the US don't last... what, 2 years now?? Who knows. Thoughts??

I would like that too. Keep campaigning concentrated to within 3 months of Election Day.

3 months for main election and 2 or 3 for the primary seem like a good amount

States get to decide when they have their primaries which is why we have the race to be first and a primary season that stretches for so long that both major Party candidates are already selected before every state votes.

Why does it takes months across all 50 states for what should be an online vote of party members to pick their candidate?

 d-usa wrote:
Why does it takes months across all 50 states for what should be an online vote of party members to pick their candidate?

Because the people who the parties rely on the most to show up and vote still haven't quite figured out what this "online thing" is all about.

Besides, if they could make online voting work effectively for primaries, then they could do it for the real election, too. And making it easier to vote is something one party has been doing their best (worst?) to prevent.

The issue is that people like to argue that primary voting is a state issue, run by states. But they also like to argue that primary voting is a party issue, run by parties.

It can’t, or at least shouldn’t, be both.

It's the state's political party that makes that determination... in compliance to states laws of course.

The national political party doesn't really get the final say on how the primary process is conducted.

That's why there are so many variances on how the primary is conducted...

Who could forgot that the primary electors (for the party) could be determined by a coin toss!
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iowa-caucus-coin-toss/

So why am I paying for the elections of a private group closed to outsiders?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why does it takes months across all 50 states for what should be an online vote of party members to pick their candidate?

Because the people who the parties rely on the most to show up and vote still haven't quite figured out what this "online thing" is all about.

Besides, if they could make online voting work effectively for primaries, then they could do it for the real election, too. And making it easier to vote is something one party has been doing their best (worst?) to prevent.

No online voting... please.

Stick to paper ballots... there's nothing stopping us from having the primary day (or election day) all done on one day.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This thread’s going pretty well, isn’t it?

Give it time.

 d-usa wrote:
So why am I paying for the elections of a private group closed to outsiders?

not sure what you're referring to...

...unless you're talking about closed primaries where you had to be a member of a party, rather than an open primary???

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This thread’s going pretty well, isn’t it?

Give it time.

Eh, we already had blatant misinformation posted on page 4, so...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just make the election Ranked Choice for an instant runoff and get rid of the primary.

We’ve never been required to have any primaries at all, they’re strictly a political party process independent of the need to elect people to office. Nobody has to pay any attention or credence to Democrats or Republicans we’ve always been able to vote however we want and the Parties have always been able to choose their candidates however they want.

And you're completely missing the point. How things currently work is largely irrelevant when people talk about how things could work better. Ranked voting would be a much better system than we have currently.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So why am I paying for the elections of a private group closed to outsiders?

not sure what you're referring to...

...unless you're talking about closed primaries where you had to be a member of a party, rather than an open primary???

That's exactly the issue:

Why is the State of Oklahoma administering and burdening the cost for a private election for the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, the Republican Party of Oklahoma, and the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma.
Why is the State of Oklahoma not opening up their ballot service to any other private entities?
Why am I paying for private inter-party elections that I cannot participate in?

Parties with closed primaries should be forced to pay the cost of administering their elections.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This thread’s going pretty well, isn’t it?

Give it time.

Eh, we already had blatant misinformation posted on page 4, so...

It's not a US Politics thread until someone responds to that blatant misinformation with a more ludicrous set of misinformation.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So why am I paying for the elections of a private group closed to outsiders?

not sure what you're referring to...

...unless you're talking about closed primaries where you had to be a member of a party, rather than an open primary???

That's exactly the issue:

Why is the State of Oklahoma administering and burdening the cost for a private election for the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, the Republican Party of Oklahoma, and the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma.
Why is the State of Oklahoma not opening up their ballot service to any other private entities?
Why am I paying for private inter-party elections that I cannot participate in?

Parties with closed primaries should be forced to pay the cost of administering their elections.

The States shouldn’t be payin for any of the primaries. Unfortunately the politicians that run the states belong to the two Parties that want the Stste to pay for their primaries. All Parties should be responsible for self funding their primary process whatever it may be. The State should be responsible for registration, voter rolls, and administering the polling places and ballots on Election Day. The State should have a deadline for the submission of Party candidates so they can produce correct ballots but aside from the cost of the ballots the State shouldn’t be paying the cost for the Parties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This thread’s going pretty well, isn’t it?

Give it time.

Eh, we already had blatant misinformation posted on page 4, so...

It's not a US Politics thread until someone responds to that blatant misinformation with a more ludicrous set of misinformation.

Well yeah I mean it’s not like we’re part of Sinclair Broadcasting.

At least we have some things we can agree on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Is there any realistic chance the two major parties will ever lose their stranglehold on control? There seems to be some rather substantially undemocratic barriers in the way of competition having it's voice heard currently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution

Also, as Marx points out, capitalism will sell the revolution the tools of its own destruction. Even now the NRA lobbies for the right to sell the revolution the AR-15s that will put an end to oppression. As previous generations have had the AK-47 as the symbol of freedom from tyranny our generation will embrace the AR-15.

Nope, AR-15 jams too much, AK-47 is THE hot item for a revolutionary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which doesn't mean that the US isn't a Democracy, only that it isn't a specific type of democracy. Fair enough on the comparison to parliamentary systems though.

For sure, a republic utilizes democratic mechanisms, I just think it's important to analyze the system we're talking about.

For example: I lived in the UK for two years and I am personally unaware of a situation where a set of laws, such as Firearm regulations, might differ drastically between say, Greater London, and Surrey or Kent. {this is not a gun-laws phishing exercise, its just the first example I could think of}. In the U.S. one can abide the firearm laws of their particular state, cross over a border, and immediately be in violation of the new state's local laws [concealed carry for example].

IF MY EXAMPLE OF LAWS BETWEEN PROVINCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS WRONG -- Please let me know with references! I'm happy to learn new stuff

You might want to consider the size of the UK versus say California or Montana. It's more of a size issue than a federalization issue. I would point out that for the longest time there were very distinct weapon laws between North Ireland and the rest of the UK. Once you have enough territory you end up running into problems where culture/territory group A has very different values and legal desires than culture/territory group B.

Sheer size of the US matters as well as we are a lot more "diverse" naturally than other countries since we are all at one point or another immigrants. One of our biggest issues as a country as far as I am concerned is we really don't much like each other and certainly don't spend much time trying to. Add an unhealthy amount of distrust to the contempt and you can see why we have a hard time getting things done nationally.

 Whazgog Da Despot wrote:


For sure, a republic utilizes democratic mechanisms, I just think it's important to analyze the system we're talking about.

For example: I lived in the UK for two years and I am personally unaware of a situation where a set of laws, such as Firearm regulations, might differ drastically between say, Greater London, and Surrey or Kent. {this is not a gun-laws phishing exercise, its just the first example I could think of}. In the U.S. one can abide the firearm laws of their particular state, cross over a border, and immediately be in violation of the new state's local laws [concealed carry for example].

IF MY EXAMPLE OF LAWS BETWEEN PROVINCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS WRONG -- Please let me know with references! I'm happy to learn new stuff

You're not entirely correct there. Cartridge firing handguns IIRC can still be legally owned in Northern Ireland and on the Isle of Man (Or could last time I checked) but are almost completely banned elsewhere in the UK. Scotland has also fairly recently instituted licencing for airguns which is not a requirement elsewhere in the UK. The Isle of Man also has their own separate system of permits for air weapons and crossbows which are not applicable elsewhere. It doesn't differ from county to county, true, but there are circumstances where crossing from one jurisdiction within the UK to another can turn legal ownership into a serious criminal offence. Anyway, apologies for the off-topic diversion.

 d-usa wrote:
13% of Clinton votes came from a state with 12% of the total US population

no.

They came from two city areas. The rest voted crimson red.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
You have summoned the "we're not a Democracy..." beast!

Someone called my name?