• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

proportional-system vs winner-takes-all-system - which voting system do you prefer?

I prefer

  • the proportional system

    Votes: 23 60.5%

  • the winner-takes-all system

    Votes: 7 18.4%

  • other

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Total voters
    38
Rumpel said:
proportional-system vs winner-takes-all-system - which voting system do you prefer?
Click to expand...
A proportional system would iron out some.of the kinks in the Electoral college. It's not a fix, mind, it's a bandaid. But it would help some.
 
Proportional, of course.

Something like the system in Italy and Israel.

That way, everyone gets a seat at the table.

If we had such a system, all shades of the Democratic and Republican parties would have a seat, and they would be forced to compromise.

Might it be messy?

So what?

That's a true democracy.

(Here in California, the Dems can totally ignore the views of the Republicans. That ain't democracy!)
 
Here is an article from March 18th 2016


Proportional vs. Winner-Take-All

Karl T. Muth explains WTL vs. proportional systems, and why “The Donald” will likely succeed in what is predominantly a winner-take-all system.
www.globalpolicyjournal.com
 
Rumpel said:
proportional-system vs winner-takes-all-system - which voting system do you prefer?
Click to expand...
You need a political party system to run a proportional voting system. Where as all america has is individuals who will seek protection without alliance to an umbrella group of either dems or reps.
 
I once lived in a country thst switched from a 'first past the post' electoral system to a proportional representation system. The proportional system tends to give more leverage to the smaller, more extreme left and right. Means they get heard rather than frustrated, but also means that you end up with some of their views impacting on legislation. I don't think in practice that proportional representation actually guarrantees taking a country down a stable middle path like you might think because the coalitions tend to be a centre left combined with the further left, or the centre right with the further right..Sometimes you get a left/right coalition that treads a centrist path, but often not.

Overall it is probably a slightly fairer system, but my experience was often the frustration of watching minor, more extreme, parties getting silly legislation passed as part of their coalition agreements.
 
Rothschild once said

“GIVE me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Republicans have taken it another step

Give me control of counting the votes and I care not who votes
 
jonny5 said:
What do you mean proportional? Only one person can win.

I do like ranked choice though.
Click to expand...
I think ranked choice would penalize candidates who pander to the "wing nuts". That would be a GOOD thing.
 
So far, I haven't heard any republican views that even attempt to help anyone but the corporate and wealthy man's interests. When asked what McConnell would push for if he took control of the senate, he said "I don't know, give us control and we'll let you know"

Republicans have no idea what they want. They have no platform for two election cycles in a row. Why wouldn't we ignore their views? It's all cancel culture and "Let's Go Brandon" That's all you got.
 
Rumpel said:
I think the proportional voting system is clearly defined.
Click to expand...
Define it for us. I have an idea but nothing that's not spelled out on a forum, leaves idle minds to define it to suit themselves.
Drumpf was very hip to the idea that vague policies allowed the gullible to make it whatever They wanted it to be.
 

It isnt, its the same as always https://prod-static.gop.com/media/R...00.2055661719.1598124638-455285808.1584478680

And it cant be any worse than what we have now.
 
Rumpel said:
proportional-system vs winner-takes-all-system - which voting system do you prefer?
Click to expand...

Proportional representation seems to be tailor-made to ensure that as few people get what they want as possible and almost everyone is equally disappointed. First past-the-post seems to be best for half the electorate being sorely disappointed and the other half marginally pleased at best.
 
I disagree, as with proportional voting in most countries the result is usually two coalitions that effectively act as parties. The difference is these coalitions are highly mutable and in my opinion better reflect the views of a country.
 
We have proportional representation here in Ireland. It can be a real mess. These are the results in the last election, for example (the numbers are for members of parliament elected). Sinn Fein came second but the three other parties which finished in the top 4 formed a coalition government to exclude them.

 
Nomad4Ever said:
I disagree, as with proportional voting in most countries the result is usually two coalitions that effectively act as parties. The difference is these coalitions are highly mutable and in my opinion better reflect the views of a country.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I would want to know how such a system would work in a country such as ours with a bicameral legislature representing the people of semi-sovereign states (and the states themselves) instead of prefectures/provinces, along with a separate unitary executive branch which is put in place by an Electoral College. Perhaps someone has written an article comparing our system to a similar federated/confederated nation with a proposal of how proportional representation could be achieved within our constitutional framework and how meaningful its impact would be. I would like to see it, because the only part of our government where proportional representation makes sense is in the House of Representatives, and while important, I do not see how that would necessarily change our system for the better. Beyond the satisfaction of smaller, more marginal parities having a voice in the lower house of Congress. Perhaps the idea is that it might lower political polarization and force cooperative coalition-building to get legislation passed at the lower house level?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…