Only in America

[Sean Hayden]

Russian troll.

[pErvinalia]

Don't forget that our senate is gerrymandered as well.

[JimC]

Democracy is not an all or nothing situation. I am comfortable saying that the US is a democracy in the general sense, with major flaws that diminish the general principle of voting equality, whether they spring from partisan gerrymandering, deliberate efforts to stop certain sectors voting or an electoral college with its clear failure to allow majority rule. Other western democracies are also flawed, but not to the same extent.

[Hermit]

Don't forget that our senate is gerrymandered as well.

Yeah. And what about the elections in Saudi Arabia?

The erstwhile Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, was the king of gerrymander. Also, he organised the seats such that rural ones had half the number of voters of urban ones. Of course rural voters were much more likely to vote for the Country Party (as it was named then) he was head of than Labor. At one stage he retained the premiership on the strength of his party attracting 19% of the total vote.

[Scot Dutchy]

Don't forget that our senate is gerrymandered as well.

Yeah. And what about the elections in Saudi Arabia?

The erstwhile Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, was the king of gerrymander. Also, he organised the seats such that rural ones had half the number of voters of urban ones. Of course rural voters were much more likely to vote for the Country Party (as it was named then) he was head of than Labor. At one stage he retained the premiership on the strength of his party attracting 19% of the total vote.

The tories did that in Britain in the 50's. Urban constituencies were huge and rural were tiny.

[Seabass]

Land of the free to kill black kids.

Officer who fatally shot [12 year old] Tamir Rice gets new police job

[Forty Two]

Responding to Hermit here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=780

What is it that could possibly get you riled up and insulting about this particular issue?

One, I did not "redefine democracy." In common English usage, the US is a democracy and a republic. No country is exclusively democratic - all can be more or less democratic.

Two, the US elects its federal legislature via direct popular vote, and each individual state legislature is elected that way too. Isn't that democratic?

The voting for President is done by Electors. What's wrong with that? In the UK and Canada, the head of government is elected by a vote of the Parliament. Is that "undemocratic?" I guarantee you that if there was a vote of the population for Prime Minister directly, it wouldn't necessarily be the same person who the members of parliament choose, don't you agree?

There are plenty of arguments for elimination of the electoral college relative to the presidency, but this particular exchange was about whether the US is a democracy or not. It is.

Once again, if a country can call itself a democracy when it has its legislature decide who the head of government is, I think it's fair to say that the US is also democratic.

And if you're going to use terms like tu quoque, try to use them properly. Tu quoque is the fallacy from hypocrisy which says that if Hermit makes a claim, and 42 points out that Hermit's actions or past claims are inconsistent with that claim, it does not follow that Hermit's claim is false. Pointing out that another government doesn't popularly elect its head of state, yet is still considered a democracy, is not "tu quoque." Surely you see that?

[Forty Two]

Democracy is not an all or nothing situation. I am comfortable saying that the US is a democracy in the general sense, with major flaws that diminish the general principle of voting equality, whether they spring from partisan gerrymandering, deliberate efforts to stop certain sectors voting or an electoral college with its clear failure to allow majority rule. Other western democracies are also flawed, but not to the same extent.

If the US elected its head of government as in a parliamentary system, then he or she would be elected by the party(or coalition) that wins the most seats in the House of Representatives (chosen from the representatives). So, in 1994, for example, when the Republicans won the most seats in Congress, Newt Gingrich (then "leader" of the GOP) would have been President instead of Speaker of the House. Clinton wouldn't have been President.

Similarly, in 2008, the Repubs won the House of Representatives - John Boehner was the leader of the GOP at the time, so he was made Speaker of the House. However, if a parliamentary system was used, then he would have been Prime Minister (head of government), and Obama would not have been in that position.

In 1984, the Democrats won the lion's share of the House (parliament) seats while Reagan won the Presidency. Would it have been more democratic or less democratic for Tip O'Neill (then Speaker of the HOuse) to be President?

Would that be more or less of a democratic way to elect heads of government?

I submit that it's a different way to elect them. Neither way represents the will of the people as to the specific person who is ultimately chosen. It's a balance of interests.

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Democracy is not an all or nothing situation. I am comfortable saying that the US is a democracy in the general sense, with major flaws that diminish the general principle of voting equality, whether they spring from partisan gerrymandering, deliberate efforts to stop certain sectors voting or an electoral college with its clear failure to allow majority rule. Other western democracies are also flawed, but not to the same extent.

If the US elected its head of government as in a parliamentary system, then he or she would be elected by the party(or coalition) that wins the most seats in the House of Representatives (chosen from the representatives). So, in 1994, for example, when the Republicans won the most seats in Congress, Newt Gingrich (then "leader" of the GOP) would have been President instead of Speaker of the House. Clinton wouldn't have been President.

Similarly, in 2008, the Repubs won the House of Representatives - John Boehner was the leader of the GOP at the time, so he was made Speaker of the House. However, if a parliamentary system was used, then he would have been Prime Minister (head of government), and Obama would not have been in that position.

In 1984, the Democrats won the lion's share of the House (parliament) seats while Reagan won the Presidency. Would it have been more democratic or less democratic for Tip O'Neill (then Speaker of the HOuse) to be President?

Would that be more or less of a democratic way to elect heads of government?

I submit that it's a different way to elect them. Neither way represents the will of the people as to the specific person who is ultimately chosen. It's a balance of interests.

That really hasn't addressed any of my points. You could still have a separately elected president by popular vote, plus your congress/senate arrangement - nowhere did I suggest a parliamentary system instead. The key points would be:

* altering your electoral college arrangements so that it would be impossible for a president to win with fewer votes than his or her opponent
* having a totally independent electoral commission to alter all electoral boundaries, state or federal, so as to eliminate gerrymandering, and to get as close to a "one person, one vote value" as possible; no more blatant partisan decisions
* the same commission could work out a better way to ensure there are no systematic barriers to voter registration
* and finally (impossible, I fear me) make voting compulsory

[pErvinalia]

Unfortunately the sort of gerrymandering that we see in the Senate in Australia (and I'm guessing the US as well), is unavoidable if you want to stop the big states running roughshod over the smaller states. In a situation like that, you'd find states like WA (in Aust for eg) seceding, as there wouldn't be much point in being in the union. And the idea of republics is that you gain strength from the union. So while the big states get screwed via the gerrymandering, it's not like they aren't gaining greatly by having the smaller states (usually farming and mining dominated) in the union.

By the way, this may be total bullshit. I've got no way of backing any of that up.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Electoral College should be scrapped. The president should only be elected by popular vote as for the rest scrap the lot and start again. America is a mess and will remain an undemocratic one. States should be elected by PR.
But the biggest problem is registration. For the situation in America there is no solution because the corruption.

[Seabass]

Not The Onion.

Christian 'Prophet': Dems Caused Hurricane to Punish Kavanaugh Fans
https://www.advocate.com/religion/2018/ ... naugh-fans

[Scot Dutchy]

Of course.

[pErvinalia]

Fuck's sake America. Sort your shit out!