April 30, 201412 yr Kentucky virtually plays no role in the Presidential election as it is now. The only time candidates visit is when they fly in on their way to Ohio. Most states don't. True enough, but I think Jumper Dad's post was more a concern for how Kentucky is represented in a legislature where proportional representation exists.
April 30, 201412 yr Kentucky virtually plays no role in the Presidential election as it is now. The only time candidates visit is when they fly in on their way to Ohio. I did see Clinton on Election Day eve in Lexington, but the statement is for the most part true.
April 30, 201412 yr We are talking Representatives not President, Ky Senators and Congressmen do play a role in national politics. I think the Spanish system involves a lot more protections for that sort of thing than the the Dutch system. But it would be interesting to see the results. For example, let's say the total number of representatives from each particular state remain the same based on population (like in Spain) but that the districts within each state are done away with. In the 2012 house elections, the Republicans won five of the six seats, but with only 59 percent of the total vote. Done in proportion, that's only 3.5 seats won by the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, held only one seat, but had 39 percent of the vote statewide. In proportion, that's at least two seats. That's a very basic example because everything changes in a statewide scenario. Rural Democrats probably don't support a left-leaning Louisvillian like Yarmuth in the same way they do someone from their own area. And it doesn't account for any rising minority parties. What proportional representation can do is often empower minority groups in certain areas with representation that can't get in a single-winner system. You'll see more conservative candidates from the north and west and more leftist candidates from the south and midwest. It would do really fun things for parties as a whole. You'd certainly see a retention of a typical conservative party. You'd also see the Democratic party fracture somewhat into its very progressive wing (read: American Socialist Party) and others would join in with moderates currently leaning conservatives in a more middle-of-the road party akin to Britain's Liberal Democrats (I urge everyone to remember what "liberal" actually means and not the Karl Rove definition). You'd see other regional parties develop as well. Proabably a couple parties crop up from time to time with secession as part of the platform. I'd love it.
April 30, 201412 yr I think the Spanish system involves a lot more protections for that sort of thing than the the Dutch system. But it would be interesting to see the results. In the 2012 house elections, the Republicans won five of the six seats, but with only 59 percent of the total vote. Done in proportion, that's only 3.5 seats won by the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, held only one seat, but had 39 percent of the vote statewide. In proportion, that's at least two seats. So someone that actually won an election would not get the position and it would be given to someone that lost?
April 30, 201412 yr So someone that actually won an election would not get the position and it would be given to someone that lost? With no districts, then no person had already won. I'm speaking strictly in terms of what percentage of people in Kentucky voted for candidates from each party.
April 30, 201412 yr With nationwide proportional representation... Democrats could currently control the House of Representatives. 59,645,531 people (48.8%) voted for Democratic house candidates in 2012. 58,228,253 (47.6%) voted for Republicans. As it stands, the GOP controls the House by 33 seats. Again, that's just one method of calculation... there are countless ways to do proportional representation... and there is no way minority parties wouldn't have emerged in some areas to steal seats from both parties.
April 30, 201412 yr True enough, but I think Jumper Dad's post was more a concern for how Kentucky is represented in a legislature where proportional representation exists. Gotcha.
April 30, 201412 yr Ralph Nader has to come out against the two party system. His third party run in 2000 gave us President George W Bush. If I had done that I would have trouble sleeping at night. His argument has always been that there isn't any difference between the two major perties. The war in Iraq is proof that it makes a profound difference.
April 30, 201412 yr Also, all it would take to end a "two party" system is for people to stop having the mentality that voting for someone outside of one of those parties is equivalent to throwing your vote away. People always seem to say things like "I agree with this guy, but he has no chance," and so they vote for someone else.... thereby ensuring that the candidate they like probably has no chance. In 2012 someone posted on here a link to a site that asked you simple questions based on issues and told you which candidate you aligned with. For most of us, that probably wasn't either of the main candidates. And yet you'd have never dreamed of voting for someone else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70
April 30, 201412 yr Ralph Nader has to come out against the two party system. His third party run in 2000 gave us President George W Bush. If I had done that I would have trouble sleeping at night. His argument has always been that there isn't any difference between the two major perties. The war in Iraq is proof that it makes a profound difference. That was certainly his argument back in 1999. I think the last 15 years have revealed a deeper ideological divide between the parties than people saw at that point.
April 30, 201412 yr Ralph Nader has to come out against the two party system. His third party run in 2000 gave us President George W Bush. If I had done that I would have trouble sleeping at night. Third parties in this country seem to get too hung up on the presidency. Ralph Nader had no shot at the White House. But I believe he's from Connecticut. Can you imagine the hubbub he could create if the Green Party had gotten a House or Senate seat that year with Ralph Nader heading to Congress with no attachment to a party? Grass roots and building a party up by running for local office or for Congress is how to get it rolling, not running a Libertarian or Green for the presidency and seeing if you can get two percent. A well-known third party candidate can be a catalyst if he's the right guy. Jesse Ventura had what it took to win the office, but not the gravitas and leadership skills to turn it into something that party could build into future elections. A serious candidate with a good reputation could win a local or statewide race and absolutely get something going for the future.
April 30, 201412 yr Third parties in this country seem to get too hung up on the presidency. Ralph Nader had no shot at the White House. But I believe he's from Connecticut. Can you imagine the hubbub he could create if the Green Party had gotten a House or Senate seat that year with Ralph Nader heading to Congress with no attachment to a party? Grass roots and building a party up by running for local office or for Congress is how to get it rolling, not running a Libertarian or Green for the presidency and seeing if you can get two percent. A well-known third party candidate can be a catalyst if he's the right guy. Jesse Ventura had what it took to win the office, but not the gravitas and leadership skills to turn it into something that party could build into future elections. A serious candidate with a good reputation could win a local or statewide race and absolutely get something going for the future. Agree. I think in our past some third parties would do this. In the areas of the country where they had a decent following, they would run people in local races, state legislatures and possibly for US House seats and maybe even Senate. When it came to the presidency, at their national convention, they would instead endorse the candidate of the other two parties who the felt most closely matched their views. I believe the Populist Party did this a few times. Didn't they endorse Grover Cleveland once? Teddy Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party but all that did was split the vote between he and Taft giving Wilson the election. Not saying Wilson was a bad choice but Roosevelt gave him a gift
April 30, 201412 yr I believe the Populist Party did this a few times. Didn't they endorse Grover Cleveland once? Not sure. I know they endorsed another Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, in 1896. The People's Party was fascinating.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.