{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por Quantum:
1/20/2013 3:18:44 AM
16
America should ditch the first past the post system
First past the post is an incredibly flawed system. It is susceptible to gerrymandering, the spoiler effect, minority rule, and almost always results in a two party system due to strategic voting.
There are other systems available, for example, Alternative Vote is a system used in Australia, while MMP is used in New Zealand and Germany (with variations).
Do you think America should adopt a new system, or are you happy with the current electoral college? Which system should America adopt?
Keep the discussion civilized.
Background information:
What is...?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY]Gerrymandering[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE]Alternative Vote[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU]MMP[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k]Problem with the Electoral College[/url]
-
First past the post is ridiculous. "Electability" should never be something a voter has to consider when voting for a candidate. If he/she is the candidate is who most represents you, that's who you should vote for. Instant-runoff FTW.
-
If we [i]were[/i] to change our form of election, I would want the alternative-vote method, where we rank all the candidates by preference.
-
2 RespuestasWhen designing a voting system, there are a variety of things to take into consideration - for example is it monotonic? Does it deliver the Condorcet winner (if one exists)? Is it simple to understand / implement? Plurality voting systems aren't great, but that isn't to say that AV is better. Pretty much all the same problems (Condorcet notwithstanding). What is really needed is the Borda count. If it's good enough for the Eurovision song contest, it's good enough for you! [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count]Borda[/url]
-
11 RespuestasIt's susceptible to gerrymandering because there's no constitutional limitations on what state legislatures are allowed to do when it comes to redistricting. The Constitution needs to be amended to ban gerrymandering.
-
here's what I think should happen. When election season starts (its given a date), each candidate gets "x" amount of money to use for campaigning, and they can use no more (no donors or fund raising allowed). They can't use money from outside sources to campaign (meaning money is less of a variable in terms of who is elected based on advertising). The government would give each candidate "X" dollars, and that's all they get to run their campaign. I know that some of you will say that this is unfair because people can't donate to the candidate they are wanting to win, but hear me out. Let's look at the campaigning costs of big-name parties and candidates. These are easily in the millions and millions of dollars. So let's say that I want to run for office. This means that even in an attempt to run for office that I'm going to need a few million dollars. Tell me, where am I going to get this kind of money, especially when I don't have a big-name party to back me? Chances are that the other companies and groups who are supporting the bigger candidates will not give me money to campaign because they are giving that money to another candidate already. Even if my political ideas match those of a big name candidate but I have a few differences, the companies know that I have no shot because I don't have the financial backing that those candidates do, so they aren't going to waste their time or money. The idea of being able to collect money from outside sources creates a very unfair political system, and doesn't make room or allow other parties to get in to the race and have a TRUE shot at getting elected. If we want to see fair elections, we need to not allow candidates to exceed a certain amount of money to be spent on their campaigning. Its not fair to the people who want to buff a candidate's wallet so that they can get what they want in terms of advertising, but its the only way to make it so that everybody has a fair chance to represent themselves and their ideals.
-
Yea get rid of the 1st past the post but keep the electoral college and the bullshit "Different states = different voting rules" which just breeds corruption.
-
5 RespuestasBro...I never knew what Gerrymandering was until now. Ain't that some lame shit?
-
CGPgrey has such a calm voice I think if he put his mind to it he could legitimately make people think that the sun orbits earth.
-
3 RespuestasI've always liked AV better.
-
3 RespuestasVery good videos. I think that Canada should have a different system. As it is, Bloc is usually widely overrepresented while Green is widely underrepresented. In fact, the Conservatives managed to win a majority with only around 40% of the vote, so they can't claim to speak for the majority of Canadians especially when there was only around 60% voter turnout. I would much rather have one of those systems shown in those videos.
-
1 RespuestaFascinating video.
-
3 RespuestasWhat is that? Winner takes all?
-
28 RespuestasSo what is your alternative to "whoever gets the most votes wins"? 70% of US Presidents since Quincy Adams have had the popular vote by at least 50%, and 80% since and including FDR. If this happened every other election, I'd be right there with you. But it doesn't. Something I think should happen is the removal of delegates. I like the idea of weighting states, but if, say, Pennsylvania votes 56/44 Democrat in the 2016 election, there should be a 100% chance that that candidate gets 20 electoral votes.
-
1 RespuestaI actually understand MMP now! :D
-
1 RespuestaEditado por The Garrison: 1/20/2013 2:55:40 AM*Braces for CGPGREY* *Opens link* *Isn't surprised*
-
CGPGrey <3 Agreed.
