tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post1529613407290729924..comments2024-02-17T04:06:00.805-05:00Comments on Just Not Said: Even more planksJohn Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-40544894784109227232011-11-16T15:35:34.833-05:002011-11-16T15:35:34.833-05:00Taylor --
You make a lot of good points, though I ...Taylor --<br />You make a lot of good points, though I don't think that Republican or Democratic majorities usually undo most of the laws that previous Congresses passed. (Think of the Bush tax cuts, for instance.) <br /><br />Usually what happens inmost European countries is that representatives of the far left, the left, the moderates, the right, and the far right (whatever names they go by) all get elected, and end up forming temporary alliances and coalitions with each other to get various measures passed. I just don't see the end result being any better than it is here. Look at what's happening in Greece, Italy, etc.John Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-36204422037613242972011-11-16T15:12:57.867-05:002011-11-16T15:12:57.867-05:00I suppose you're right that in America the maj...I suppose you're right that in America the majority has a much easier time accomplishing their goals, but I'm not so sure that's an advantage. Legislation might get passed quickly and easily but as soon as the other party gains control they undo everything that was accomplised by the previous majority. In Europe they might struggle to get the legislation passed but once it is it's far more lasting, which I think is at the very least more efficient. <br />Also, in Europe, parties usually form into two different coalitions on almost every issue, and those coalitions end up being pretty similar to reps v dems anyways. The difference is voters turnout is much higher because voters can actually find a party/politican that they identify with, and approval ratings are much higher because its easier to identify whether your representative took the right side. In America their side is generally pre-determined by their party.Taylor Leland Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12490386065136311143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-22734825656410206932011-11-16T14:37:10.087-05:002011-11-16T14:37:10.087-05:00Thank you Taylor. A parliamentary system is appeal...Thank you Taylor. A parliamentary system is appealing in some ways, but the question is, does it work in Europe? It seems tome that if you have a lot of competing factions all vying for power in those Parliaments, you end up with compromise solutions all the time, and neither party ever really gets their way. Over here that's called a stalemate. So...the answer to your question is, I'm not sure.John Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-39572543701470976932011-11-16T12:14:44.172-05:002011-11-16T12:14:44.172-05:00So far I agree with practically all of your polici...So far I agree with practically all of your policies. Especially that we should forget the electoral college and do away with campaign contributions. However I think you could go a lot further than that. Would you agree, for example, that the two-party system is flawed?<br />Most democracies use proportional representation to determine the seats of their parliament. This allows for a multi-party system, which requires compromise within the parliament. It allows each voter to feel like they are voting for candidates that truly represent their interests, and it allows for voters who would otherwise feel their vote is wasted to feel like they can actually gain representation. <br />In otherwords, would you agree that a presidential system is inferior to a parliamentary system? <br /><br />-TaylorTaylor Leland Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12490386065136311143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-28478429450569709802011-11-15T20:00:13.941-05:002011-11-15T20:00:13.941-05:00Thank you toto, or Lloyd. I hadn't realized th...Thank you toto, or Lloyd. I hadn't realized the popular consensus was so overwhelming. <br /><br />Nice half marathon time there by the way.<br /><br />And I see that like a lot of track/swimming types you're a numbers guy.John Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-9610215851212206212011-11-15T19:43:37.197-05:002011-11-15T19:43:37.197-05:00The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the...The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).<br /><br />Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.<br /><br />When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. <br /> <br />The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.<br /><br />In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.<br /><br />The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.<br /><br />NationalPopularVotetotohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.com