• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Political Spectrum & Parties

68
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 30
  • USA
  • Seen Nov 11, 2018
The way our electoral system works is a preferential system that works through several rounds of counting. It's very complicated and convoluted but the general gist is that you label your votes by preference and that dictates each party's score. The party with the worst score is eliminated but rather than those votes simply not counting anymore, they get allocated to another party based on the preferences.

It's the only thing almost as stupid as an electoral college.

What do you believe would be a better system?
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
Political parties are pointless to me. I vote for people who represent my interests and what I need from this country, and usually what I think benefits others as well. Parties only increase loyalty manipulation and lobbying, and I loathe both of those entirely.

One thing that really bugs me about the U.S. election system is the whole winner-takes-all condition for electoral votes. It's not an accurate representation of the voting spread and it completely invalidates voters whose state votes overwhelmingly to one side or the other. I don't understand who in their right mind thought this was some kind of genius idea but it's quite possibly the dumbest voting system I've heard of.
 
Last edited:
68
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 30
  • USA
  • Seen Nov 11, 2018
Political parties are pointless to me. I vote for people who represent my interests and what I need from this country, and usually what I think benefits others as well. Parties only increase loyalty manipulation and lobbying, and I loathe both of those entirely.

One thing that really bugs me about the U.S. election system is the whole winner-takes-all condition for electoral votes. It's not an accurate representation of the voting spread and it completely invalidates voters whose state votes overwhelmingly to one side or the other. I don't understand who in their right mind thought this was some kind of genius idea but it's quite possibly the dumbest voting system I've heard of.

If you look at the Federalist Papers, our system wasn't supposed to work like the way it currently works. It was supposed to be based around districts, and not the State itself. As in, if you win the district within the state, then you win an electoral vote. In fact, you can look at early Presidential elections and how the electoral votes were more divided up. It wasn't until later that it became winner-take-all. I don't think it was one person who decided it, but eventually it became winner-take-all over time.

When it comes to electing the President, I believe the French have the best method. They were able to elect an independent candidate like Macron. That would never happen in the USA.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
If you look at the Federalist Papers, our system wasn't supposed to work like the way it currently works. It was supposed to be based around districts, and not the State itself. As in, if you win the district within the state, then you win an electoral vote. In fact, you can look at early Presidential elections and how the electoral votes were more divided up. It wasn't until later that it became winner-take-all. I don't think it was one person who decided it, but eventually it became winner-take-all over time.

When it comes to electing the President, I believe the French have the best method. They were able to elect an independent candidate like Macron. That would never happen in the USA.

Regardless of who came up with it, we definitely need to get rid of it. My issue with a district system is gerrymandering. That already causes issues with our current system, I couldn't imagine how terrible it would be in a district-driven system.
 
68
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 30
  • USA
  • Seen Nov 11, 2018
Regardless of who came up with it, we definitely need to get rid of it. My issue with a district system is gerrymandering. That already causes issues with our current system, I couldn't imagine how terrible it would be in a district-driven system.

Even if you want to get rid of it, many people in the USA don't want to get rid of our system. Nate Silver did a piece on it. Pretty much, even if all the Blue States voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (Which means who ever got the most votes Nationwide, would become President of the USA), you would have to convince Purple and Red States to vote for it. However, Purple States are unlikely to vote for it because they have a large influence over who becomes the next President of the USA.

On the other hand, you would have to convince Red States to join with it, but that has its own set of problems. Nate Silver wrote his piece before 2016, but a decent chunk of Republican voters want to keep our current system. Go onto any Facebook post about changing our system, and it turns into, "We should not change it, because that means California and New York will pick the next President," or, "Democrats are crying babies who want to change the system when their candidate didn't win."

I'm not saying it will never be fixed, but we need to fix things at the State level. Look at Maine, it changed how it will elect its Governor, so anything is possible.

"Republicans have fought hard to block the new system in court, saying Democrats are pushing the measure to ensure that a conservative governor can't get elected to office. And even Democrats in other states have opposed a ranked-choice system. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) blocked its wider use, saying ranked-choice voting is 'overly complicated and confusing' and 'deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.'

'I think you outright win these things. With ranked choice, you could be No. 2 and win. I don't think that makes sense in an office where any degree of strength is required," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. ' "

Of course, getting Democrats to get onboard isn't easy either.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/maine-new-way-electing-politicians_us_5b16fe45e4b0734a99386f47

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/
 
Last edited:

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
Generally the discussion I've seen is "keep everything the way it is" or "scrap it all" as the opposing arguments, neither of which is what I'm suggesting. There are many flaws to any system, but this one in particular is a big one. I'm simply saying we should get rid of the winner-takes-all aspect of electoral votes. It would fairly spread the votes out across voting demographics and make deep-blue states like California or deep-red states like Texas more balanced for voters in the opposite party or third parties, and it would create more swing states out of states that typically share an even split of votes. Additionally, it would give a bigger incentive to third-party voters as they would actually have a chance to win some electoral votes as opposed to absolutely none.

WTA invalidates anyone who didn't vote for the party that takes the state - removing it gives right-wing voters a chance at representation in left-wing states and vice-versa. I actually think the electoral college is a good system, it just needs a lot of fixing in this regard before it can work as it should.
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
Do you have proof to back up your statement?

I'm describing something theoretical here. Why on Earth would a single-round system be limited to two parties? You have three parties, one thousand people vote for Party A, 20 thousand for B and twelve thousand for C. Part B wins.
 
68
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 30
  • USA
  • Seen Nov 11, 2018
I'm describing something theoretical here. Why on Earth would a single-round system be limited to two parties? You have three parties, one thousand people vote for Party A, 20 thousand for B and twelve thousand for C. Part B wins.

Because I already posted a video on the subject. :/

Furthermore more, it doesn't work that way. In a First-past-the-post system, you just have to win more than the other candidates. Sounds nice on paper, but those 3 parties aren't in a vacuum. Each party has its own political stance, If any two parties are similar to each other, it will divide up the vote and cause the other party to win. Also called Spoiler Effect. People will be worried about how other votes, and not what who they want to vote for.

A proportional voting system would better represent the people and not First-Past-the-post.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
People worry too much about labels that are really kind of general anyway. I usually describe myself as "libertarian-leaning," but even that's not completely accurate. I'd rather just give my opinions on various issues and people can decide for themselves what they think I'm about.
 
18,249
Posts
10
Years
The US' thing about registering to a specific party is something I don't get. We don't have that here... we also have a much less convoluted system (although one that's still too convoluted imo). Basically, we list the parties in order of preference and can vote for any party we choose. I'd rather not have a preferential system but that last part is great.

I actually don't get this either! Like what if your ideologies change?
 

Nah

15,926
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen yesterday
I actually don't get this either! Like what if your ideologies change?
You're usually allowed to change your official political affiliation whenever you want here. I did that during the 2016 primaries, changed from independent to Democrat.

Registration to a certain political party, as far as I know, doesn't really matter much for the average person, with one exception. Some states have "closed" primaries, where you can only cast votes for candidates that are of the same political party you're registered to. That's why I had to change my affiliation, as being registered as an independent effectively barred me from participating in primaries here in New Jersey. The other states with primaries have "open" primaries, where you can vote for any candidates regardless of political affiliations. And then we have caucuses on top of that for some reason.

With everything else your registration doesn't matter much, as far as I'm aware.

.....which still doesn't really make it make any sense, but hey, it's the U.S. Though I suppose it's maybe at least there for record-keeping/statistical purposes, and I guess that some people just like to have their political affiliation on government records, but idk
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
Well, I mean, I'm a Spaniard and I'm a registered member of two parties. I have a card, I pay money, attend their meetings, make suggestions for policies, vote in their primaries, etc.

In most of the world, parties still are actual organisations you join to talk about policy and try to develop an actual plan to win Government and change it, not just nebulous brands that mean "left" or "right" that individual candidates can wear, which is what happens in the US. But then again, here in Spain, or in places like Portugal, The Netherlands, Italy or Germany, you vote for /a party/, not for an individual representative (well, or half and half, in the latter two). MPs are then chosen by said parties depending on how many seats they win. So in most of Europe -and, say, in Argentina- parties are actual organisations with power and joining them makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top