GO BUSH!!! YEEAAAA!!!

[Acriku]

That's highly unlikely, as it's most likely that our genes that give us our human nature also give us more than that (pleiotropy), or may be linked to other genes to give phenotypes. That's if we even locate a gene(s) that gives us our human nature. Also, our human nature instinct reaches beyond the "me me me!" scenario, as it involves population survival, and species survival.

[Dude_Doc]

Sorry to say, but ants and bees don't live in a perfect society. No, more like a plice-state. If they don't follow their orders, or try to run off and build their own hives, they get punished. It's a fact.

Just a note ;) .

[Acriku]

Have you ever found a study showing ants "running away"? This seems highly unlikely, as they are essentially programmed what to do by pheromones.

[SurlyPIG]

You have to look at the system's history. If it was by popular vote alone, smaller states would be ignored entirely. What would be the use if bigger states are all you need? Screw the small states! This was reasoned out by makers, and made an electorial college system that would give smaller states enough electorial votes to make politicians care about the smaller states, as much as the larger states. It was kind of a compromise, if you will.

The system of elecoral colleges is called a "first past the blocks" democracy in which a nation is divided into subdivisions, and whoever wins the most subdivisions, by no matter how much of a margin, they are counted the same. This system is obsolete and flawed. The only situation it works in is if there are only two parties and the subdivisions are divided absolutely equally (like a dozen or so decades ago in the UK, where it was created, the two parties being the Liberals and the Tories, I believe).

For purposes of comparison (using the two systems I know best):

USA : Multi-party platform, but only two parties that consistently earn more than a couple percent of the votes, so the margin of error in the system is greatly reduced. However, the subdivisions, or electoral colleges, are not divided equally. They are divided by state, and even though larger states carry more voting weight, the system still recognizes a single state as a single voting entity, no matter what it's size. For example, winning California with 51% means a whole lot more than winning Rhode Island with 51%. The result: Bush wins presidential election despite recieving fewer actual votes than the "loser"

Canada : Multi-party platform, with power spread out unevenly over five parties greatling increasing the room for misrepresentation. If there were only five parties, (even though there are more), it is possible for a party to obtain a majority government (winning 50% of the subdivisions, or ridings, plust one) with less than a measely 11% of the actual votes. However, accuracy is increased by the fact that all of the ridings are about the same size (a bit over 100,000 people per riding). The result: the Liberal Party wins 57% of the seats in parliament while only having earned 43% of the actual votes. If they had recieved as many votes as they had earned, they would not have earned a majority government (hence removing their absolute immunity in parliamentary votes on bills).

There are four democratic countries in the world that still use this sytem. (count 'em) Four. Britain, Canada, Jamaica, and the USA. And last I heard, Britain was nearing change. The rest of the democratic world uses what's called proportional representation. Essentially, it is a system of tabulating votes in which a party or candidate that gets 50% votes gets 50% power, while it maintains attributes that not only preserve the importance or retions, but expresses them better. If you want to read more about it, I suggest reading the above link.

[Gobalopper]

The odd thing is that even though they lost the election due to using the electoral college system the democrats aren't pushing for change.

[SurlyPIG]

I thought that too. Maybe it's because of how it might be received. People might view it as a crybabyish excuse. The "no fair, he cheated," excuse, when they hadn't submitted for any change prior to that election. And somehow I don't think they'd be able to convince anyone that they would have changed the electoral system if it had played in their favour. It would probably be more tactful to use it as part of their platform for their next election, but I havn't heard any of the democrat candidates (are ALL of them so dull?) even mention something remotely like it.

What REALLY surprises me is why the minority parties in Canada don't use this. This is GOLD. It's like an accident waiting to happen and it's happening right now. They could stir up huge but plausible conspiracy theory about how the liberals are using the flawed system to monopolize the country. And they could claim that public broadcasting isn't reporting it out of fear of losing funding. Hell, if Harper and the CA played the alienation card, they might actually win some seats in Quebec and the Maritimes. And that's almost unthinkable!

[Acriku]

The democrats aren't pushing for a change because they know the system works. It's been working for a while now, and despite them not getting their guy into the presidency, they still respect the system. Instead of putting up arms like in other countries, they peacefully accept the loss (although some might find possible errors in how a state voted and push for revote, such as the 2000 election where a poll was taken where more people voted for Gore than Bush, but in reality on the ballots, Bush got more).

I don't think that I agree with this full representation method. If winner-takes-all systems do not give representation to the losers this year, they can try in the next election. All throughout US history, the power has fluctuated back and forth, giving the majority of the people adequate representation. I'm also not sure how the full representation method is advantageous in this respect, since the majority of the votes still gains the majority of power. Also, issues don't seem to be able to get settled with so much opposition from the tens of parties arguing about it so fiercely, if they were all given the proper amount of power. If full representation is done in the U.S., how would it represent those who don't vote at all? Or those who only vote in big elections, like presidential elections?

[Edric O]

I don't really want to get involved in the debate about the American electoral system, but there is one comment that caught my eye:

Also, issues don't seem to be able to get settled with so much opposition from the tens of parties arguing about it so fiercely, if they were all given the proper amount of power.

By that logic, you should support a one-party state, because you can be sure that no one will waste any time arguing about anything in such a state. Of course, the state would also have complete control over your life and you would have no choice but to do as you're told...

The point is that freedom is more important than efficiency.

Now, back to the discussion about communism:

The result of my hard labour will pay off several hundred years later, So why would I work hard? There's a fat chance I wouldn't get my 50 flat panels even If I worked Hard.

Actually, your hard labour will pay off immediately. In socialism, there is no limit on how rich you can become through your own work. The only thing that you can't do is to become rich through other people's work, like in capitalism.

As for communism, I just want to remind you that you are also a part of Humanity. The greater good of Humanity includes YOUR own personal good.

LOL, Don't be a fool. You don't really think 6 billion people are going to invest in "the greater good of mankind"?

Not now,

Not in a hundred years.

Absolutely correct. We will not achieve communism now, or at any time within the next hundred years. Our short-term goal is socialism. Communism can only come hundreds of years later.

And, again, I must remind you that the greater good of Humanity includes YOUR own personal good.

which is exactly why we will never have communism. it is a great idea in theory, but people do not work that way. people do not conform to a perfect model that you can fit to your government theory. people want to improve themselves, to improve their standard of living.

Yes, people want to improve themselves and their standard of living... which is exactly what they do in communism.

Do you know when communism will finally be achieved? When people like you and me stop arguing about why it "can't" work and start thinking of ways to MAKE it work.

[SurlyPIG]

I don't think that I agree with this full representation method. If winner-takes-all systems do not give representation to the losers this year, they can try in the next election. All throughout US history, the power has fluctuated back and forth, giving the majority of the people adequate representation. I'm also not sure how the full representation method is advantageous in this respect, since the majority of the votes still gains the majority of power.

No, it gives the majority of votes ALL the power. Effectively, every vote that was not for the winning person/party is null.

Also, issues don't seem to be able to get settled with so much opposition from the tens of parties arguing about it so fiercely, if they were all given the proper amount of power. If full representation is done in the U.S., how would it represent those who don't vote at all? Or those who only vote in big elections, like presidential elections?

If you don't vote, you can't whine about not being represented. In your current system, if you don't vote, it's probably not going to make a difference. But in a proportional representation system, where every ovte counts, if you don't vote, you're waiving your right to influence the government.

I'll use the most extreme example I can come up with to demonstrate how ridiculous a first past the blocks system can be. Let's say that, in the next election, the democrats win the following states by 51%:

California (54)

New York (33)

Texas (32)

Florida (25)

Pennsylvania (23)

Illinois (22)

Ohio (21)

Michigan (18)

New Jersey (15)

North Carolina (14)

Virginia (13)

Notice that these are the largest 11 states in terms of population. The number beside each is how many electorates each state has. There are 538 total, and it takes 270 to win an election. There are 270 total in the above list. Again, lets say the Democrats beat the Republicans in these states 51%-49%. Lets say the Republicans win every other state with 100% of the votes in each. Effectively, 39 states, representing 49% of the people voted 100% for the republicans, and they lost to the democrats who won les than 51% of the states with 51% of the votes in each of those 11 states.

Effectively, 25% of Americans who voted, voted for the democrats. Yet they win the election and have total power. The Republicans got 75% of the popular vote. Assuming every American voted, the president that is supposed to be representing the country had only 69 million people vote for him/her. The opposition had 202 million votes and lost, and is not represented AT ALL.

Are you telling me you seriously don't see how full representation could be better than ^this^?

[Acriku]

By that logic, you should support a one-party state, because you can be sure that no one will waste any time arguing about anything in such a state. Of course, the state would also have complete control over your life and you would have no choice but to do as you're told...

The point is that freedom is more important than efficiency.

Actually, no. There should be debate on issues, and the amount of parties in America are enough to where things do not take too long (although some say it does), and do not take too short. Enough discussion without unnecessary delayment.

No, it gives the majority of votes ALL the power. Effectively, every vote that was not for the winning person/party is null.

That's what happens in a winner-takes-all system. I have a question, would full-representation take out the executive branch?

If you don't vote, you can't whine about not being represented. In your current system, if you don't vote, it's probably not going to make a difference. But in a proportional representation system, where every ovte counts, if you don't vote, you're waiving your right to influence the government.

It most certainly does make a difference, as you can see where elections were very close - described in your link, too. The strength of a democracy comes when as many people as possible vote.

But in a proportional representation system, where every ovte counts, if you don't vote, you're waiving your right to influence the government.

So, if I run for the power, and my entire family votes for me, I'm automatically in for a portion of power? Or are there limits to how many votes can achieve power?

There are 270 total in the above list. Again, lets say the Democrats beat the Republicans in these states 51%-49%. Lets say the Republicans win every other state with 100% of the votes in each.

That is a possible scenario, but it is highly unlikely that those 11 states will all vote for one party.

Assuming every American voted, the president that is supposed to be representing the country had only 69 million people vote for him/her.

You're assuming that just because they belong to one party, that they will follow their party in issues and bills and laws. You're also assuming that everything the president does only benefits those who voted for him/her, which it doesn't. The only thing that can come from my vote not being for the winner, is that the president might not favor my side on certain issues.

The opposition had 202 million votes and lost, and is not represented AT ALL.

I explained this before. When the president is elected, he represents everyone, even though he might not favor their side sometimes. But, even if the voters for the loser don't get the presidency, they can get the Congress and House of Reps. This 4-year election is to the contrary, but then it can either reverse next election or mix it up a bit. The people do not vote the same way everytime, and every election new people are voting.

[SurlyPIG]

That's what happens in a winner-takes-all system. I have a question, would full-representation take out the executive branch?

Nope. Your presedential election is a bit different from other countries in that it's independant. There are a few different variants of PR. You should check them out to see which one would fit the US most easily.

So, if I run for the power, and my entire family votes for me, I'm automatically in for a portion of power? Or are there limits to how many votes can achieve power?

There are limits in that you have to have enough votes to at least earn a seat. I can't explain it very well, you should really check out the link some more because it's pretty complicated and this depends on which system it is.

That is a possible scenario, but it is highly unlikely that those 11 states will all vote for one party.

Why not eliminate that possibility entirely? It's not like it's going to cause any harm.

[Gobalopper]

Actually if so many people voted Republican the House/Senate would get a large number of them elected and hence be able to counter a lot of the Presidents power. I believe you need 2/3 vote to overrule a presidential veto.

When Bush was elected there were also a lot of Republicans elected as well, they now control all three levels of gov't and increased that ratio during the half-term elections.

[Guest Eric E.]

Actually, your hard labour will pay off immediately. In socialism, there is no limit on how rich you can become through your own work. The only thing that you can't do is to become rich through other people's work, like in capitalism.

I was talking about Communism, You are right about this.

As for communism, I just want to remind you that you are also a part of Humanity. The greater good of Humanity includes YOUR own personal good.

Like I said before, I don't think you can drive 6 billion people THAT *crazy* to work for something greater than themselves.

Yes, people want to improve themselves and their standard of living... which is exactly what they do in communism.

Do you know when communism will finally be achieved? When people like you and me stop arguing about why it "can't" work and start thinking of ways to MAKE it work.

First of all there will never be global communism,

Second of all, I haven't seen any good Idea's of how communism can work.

Like it was said before, Edric's Idea is great in theory, But It will never work, because people don't work that way. They won't do something that hard just for the greater good of mankind.

I think a mixture of communism and socialism can work fine in some parts of the world, but then again not globally.

[Edric O]

Well, there's not much I can say in reply to that. Only time will tell...

But if you ask me, you should never say never.

Of course, you may be right and communism may be impossible. In that case, we'll just have to get as close to it as we can. (a combination of socialism and communism, like you just said)

[Anathema]

The Netherlands has a system of proportional representation, but we don't elect the actual government ourself so I won't elaborate on that. However there is a great diversity of parties from all over the political spectrum in our parliament, wich would be impossible in a district system because smaller (and new parties) would be unable to achieve a majority vote in a single district.

Changing the US electoral system would bring in lots of new parties in congres and senate that who's voters would otherwise have no say, wich is probably one of the reasons why neither the democrat or the republican party favours such a system.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

People are too used to Capitalism and to the system today.

If the government changed to Communism people will scream.

"We're not commies like Stalin!"

Etc.

And I'm sure "Bush" would barge into the country with the words "This country is now swayed by Communist propaganda and we will free the people!"

[Edric O]

Don't worry, Sard - it doesn't look to me like any major country will move on to socialism (much less communism) any time soon. We still have some way to go before then, and no one ever said it would be easy. That's why we need all the help we can get.

[Acriku]

There are limits in that you have to have enough votes to at least earn a seat. I can't explain it very well, you should really check out the link some more because it's pretty complicated and this depends on which system it is.

Oh, so it doesn't really give full representation, just more than what the winner-takes-all system gives, correct?

Why not eliminate that possibility entirely? It's not like it's going to cause any harm.

Well you'll never know until you implement it into the system. But, I don't see enough of a problem in the winner-takes-all system that we need to adopt another system in place of it.

[Anathema]

I'll try to explain that wich I think Ace means.

If I start some new party that gets fairly popular, and get around 20 % of the votes in most of the districts I still wouldn't get any seat in the parliament despite the fact that one on five voters chose me, and my voters would have zero representation. In a system of proportional representation, my party would get 20 % of the seats in the parliament.

The only problem with proportional representation in parliament is that there will be a multitude of parties and that none would be likely to hold the majority of seats, and no president/premier/whatever from any of those parties can be sure of a majority in favour of a new bill of rights.

In the Netherlands this problem is solved by so called government coalitions. During a (usualy) short period after the elections the parties negotiote with the help of a cabinet formateur (appointed by the king/queen). Usually a combination of 2 or 3 parties hold the majorit of parliament seats and if those parties can come to an agreement about government policy, a new government is created.

[Acriku]

If I start some new party that gets fairly popular, and get around 20 % of the votes in most of the districts I still wouldn't get any seat in the parliament despite the fact that one on five voters chose me, and my voters would have zero representation. In a system of proportional representation, my party would get 20 % of the seats in the parliament.

Whoever is voted in, s/he represents the entire population that voted in the election. Even though s/he may not decide on issues their way, what s/he does represents everybody.

[Anathema]

First, let's get clear on what "represent" means. A district representative represents the whole population of that district, but in such a way that the majority of the population would approve.

In a PR system, parliament members represent the nation as a whole. I fail to see the problem.

[Acriku]

But, ACE just said that it doesn't represent the nation as a whole. There is a minimum amount of votes to get that power. So, in principle the two are no better than each other. However, I think a better understanding of it would help me understand where you and ACE are coming from (and that website didn't help), so if you guys can explain to me in what branch is this power distributed, and who becomes the executive branch.

[Anathema]

The number of votes you need depends on the total number of votes, because you need a percentage. If there are 150 seats, you need 1/150 part of the votes.

I don't entirely understand what you meant by your last question. The government is the executive branch (in my last post I explained how the Dutch government is created) and the parliament is the legislative branch (combined with the government, who can issue bill of rights but who still needs a majority of the parliament to agree).

[Acriku]

USA does not have a parliament, we just have one government, separated into three branches.

[Guest Eric E.]

Well, there's not much I can say in reply to that. Only time will tell...

But if you ask me, you should never say never.

Of course, you may be right and communism may be impossible. In that case, we'll just have to get as close to it as we can. (a combination of socialism and communism, like you just said)

Time will tell ;).