Election

[Legion]

And they should all be able to speak correct English, right?

Yes, there's nothing wrong with speaking your native language of course but if you want to be a citizen you should learn English.

I agree that if they don't want to become citizens they shall leave the country.
But generally i think that the world looks wrong at illegal imigrants and refugees, if we just made them citizens they could deliver a strong work force...

True, but America already has a strong workforce. We need people who are going to be beneficial to the country. Immigration used to be harder (in some ways) than it is today, they turned back people at the gate and sent them home.

We really need selective immigration like we used to have, that way immigrants have time to assimilate, that way they can take on the culture, language, etc.

[Legion]

That still don't make it a rebellion, unless you seriously think the hope to topple the government by doing it?

They are angry and frustrated... but it is not an organised rebellion where they are trying to change the government.

The civil war was a rebellion (from the point of view of the union) so was the war of independence., This is not.. this is "just" riots.
(please note I don't think it is acceptable behavior. Peaceful Demonstrations yes, riots no)


I fully agree that Clinton (and the DNC) are to blame.
She got something like 5½ million voted less then Obama did four years ago. She is corrupt and in the pocket of wall street and would be even more war happy than Obama. And I really don't think dynasties are any good for a democracy. The US will be better of without more Bush's and Clintons.

Among young people 51% voted last time... 19% this time. (don't remember if it was democratic votes or votes in general)
Her attitude sucked and she behaved like she had earned the presidency... and she never managed to tell people why they should show up and vote for her.

It may not be a rebellion in the usual sense, but it is a rebellion. Any act of disobedience against law and authority is an act of rebellion. I'm not saying they are trying to overthrow the government.

[thomas aagaard]

So, here is one for everyone.

Say the US was to change their electoral system this year and adopt a new system. What system do you think would be better suited for a nation like the US that might promote a greater system of parties and remove the dead lock of the current system?.

The two chamber system with all members getting the same representation in one chamber and the other based on population do make a lot of sense.
(The EU got something similar)

But change it to a Multi party system. And to get that you need to change the representation to a proportional system for each state.

So if a state have 20 members of the house and a 3rd party get 10% of the vote, they get two of the 20 seats.

To make it work in the senate it should properly change to 4 members pr. stat.


another option would be allowing election alliances. So if the green party is allied with the democrats, then if they do not get elected, their voted go to the democrats. This make it easier for small parties, since there is no risk of wasted votes.


As Senator Vinick mention in the west wing. In Europe the republicans would be 3 or 4 parties.

Idea I had, there's talk of Michelle Obama running for President, and obviously we had Bill Clinton's wife running recently. Should couples be limited to two presidential terms, seeing as how the spouse is usually somewhat influential in some Presidential decisions?

She said no way to running.


And I would say the same to that idea. A person is an individual. A wife (or husband) should not be legally limited by what another person did.

[FrancisM]

The two chamber system with all members getting the same representation in one chamber and the other based on population do make a lot of sense.
(The EU got something similar)

But change it to a Multi party system. And to get that you need to change the representation to a proportional system for each state

Not necessarily. As I mentioned earlier, you can achieve an open party system with STV or AV. Americans are so used to their system of local representation that I think it's politically impossible to convince them to install proportional representation. Maybe for a State House election.

another option would be allowing election alliances. So if the green party is allied with the democrats, then if they do not get elected, their voted go to the democrats. This make it easier for small parties, since there is no risk of wasted votes.

This can be achieved with AV/STV. And its preferable, because it gives people the ability to decide themselves who their 2nd or 3rd choice is, rather then the parties.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with speaking your native language of course but if you want to be a citizen you should learn English.

You made a double negative in your post.

[thomas aagaard]

Not necessarily. As I mentioned earlier, you can achieve an open party system with STV or AV. Americans are so used to their system of local representation that I think it's politically impossible to convince them to install proportional representation. Maybe for a State House election.




This can be achieved with AV/STV. And its preferable, because it gives people the ability to decide themselves who their 2nd or 3rd choice is, rather then the parties.



You made a double negative in your post.

There are ways of combining local representatives with a proportional system... we got one here in Denmark.

[William F. Randolph]

They need to be elected though, so I don't see a problem. FDR himself was in office for 12 years. I'm making an assumption when I say this, but I think it's more that you just don't like the Obamas rather than you want it to be more fair.

No I don't like them, but just the idea that we could've had the same family in the oval office for 16 years is kind of a loophole to that two term deal, I know this won't ever be done but it is an interesting way to look at it.

[Lackay]

i found it harder to vote for clinton primarily due to the incredible nastiness that comes from her supporters... the conservatives I know in my life served in the military, are law enforcement officers, and firefighters. not a shred of hate, bigotry or racism came from them. just a severe distrust of hillary clinton, and rightly so. i share in the confusion over why the republican party refuses to accept the facts of global climate change. it happens regardless of our actions, but our actions are increasing its speed and it should be addressed. neil degrasse tyson and billl nye need to have a serious sit down with trump and the republicans

[Mercuri]

You guys telling that the 2 parties system is the problem because it divides the people, imagine having 5 parties like we have in Spain (from far-right, right, center, left and far-left) and tell me wich system divides more the population... Imagine the fascist and the marxist participating in the politics, tv debates or going voting with the democratics parties, tell me this system is less problematic than yours :/

[thomas aagaard]

We got nine in parties in "folketinget" atm. And coalition governments of 2-3 or 4 parties are common.
(currently we don't have one, and that is rather abnormal)


And another two parties are able to run the next time.
(one is the "christian democrats" they received like 0,5% of the votes last time.... the other is a new right wing Trump wannabe party. hate the muslims and more money to the rich... and less to the poor.)

Sure they are divided into red and blue block. Since the prime minister is the one who can gather the most support...
(the red being the parties that is most inspired by socialism, big state and similar.
So blue include the economic liberals, who want a small state and low taxes... and it include the nationalistic and conservative parties. And then there are the progressive party who don't want to be placed on the classic left/right line and are ready to make deals with both sides. But do support (red) the social democrats. )

And party loyalty is, just like in the US way, way to common.
But with more parties it is a lot easier to make compromises since you just need to find a party that agree with you on the issue.
And even parties that in some areas are rather fare from each other, do agree with each other on others.

And this also help giving a tradition of very wide compromises, so you can often have most parties supporting a bill. The advantage is that after an election the agreement will still hold.
This make long term planning and changed easier and make the whole system more stable.

You simply don't have the same risk of the opposition grid locking everything as have happened to a large extent in the US for he last 8 years.

[FrancisM]

You guys telling that the 2 parties system is the problem because it divides the people, imagine having 5 parties like we have in Spain (from far-right, right, center, left and far-left) and tell me wich system divides more the population... Imagine the fascist and the marxist participating in the politics, tv debates or going voting with the democratics parties, tell me this system is less problematic than yours :/

Spain also has huge regionalist issues, was a dictatorship for 40 years just a few decades ago and had a historic civil war. Imcomparible with the USA. Besides, people already ARE divided - a two-party system just ignores this and pretends everything is fine, which is how you get angry people who feel politics don't represent them. People who argue for a Majority system because 'it works better' fail to see that the point of parliaments are to represent the people and perform checks and balances over the executive government, and therefor it needs to be representative.