RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

What if the US had a parliament?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61807
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/08/12 2:29 pm    ::: What if the US had a parliament? Reply Reply with quote

Suppose we allocated the 435 seats in the House of Representatives by the presidential vote? Using the Huntington-Hill method, the same way the house seats are allocated to the states (except that we're not guaranteeing any seats), and the popular vote totals from here, the make up would be...

220 Democrats
209 Republicans
4 Libertarians
2 Greens



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 628
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/10/12 3:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well..we KIND OF do have what England has. They have the House of Lords, we have the Senate--supposedly the stronger more powerful house. England has the House of Commons, we have the House of Representatives.

House of Lords is the Upper House, so is the Senate
House of Commons is the Lower House, so it the House of Representatives.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61807
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/05/13 11:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Using the final totals, a US parliament would have...

223 Democrats
206 Republicans
4 Libertarians
2 Greens



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13227
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/05/13 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I personally don't like Britain's Parliament that much....from what I've seen they spend entirely too much time shouting at each other and being most uncivil. Rude, even. Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/05/13 5:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I am not a huge fan of a lot of things about parliamentary systems (including that they can give splinter parties inordinate power, as has been happening for years in Israel), but they do have advantages, including much shorter elections.

I also think that the British question period would be a great thing to have in Congress.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10672
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/05/13 7:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
[snip]...I also think that the British question period would be a great thing to have in Congress.



__________X [co-sign]


p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/06/13 12:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<object width="480" height="360"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UypeE3zTwBs?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


akronborn



Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 1472
Location: Right Hynaw -- Cartman


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/07/13 10:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Any particular reason? Thanks

^ Laughing


eclair



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 3913



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/07/13 11:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

p_d_swanson wrote:
<object width="480" height="360"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UypeE3zTwBs?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


Congress needs Bootsy.



_________________
Put a Bird on it.
shrrew



Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 6097
Location: Missouri


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/13 7:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Congress needs the funk! *dancing* Very Happy Cool

P_D_ and Pilight have the funk! *dancing*


Reb Kells has the funk! *dancing*


now see what you did. I might have to whip out Flashlight!



_________________
(shrrew)
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5819
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/13 7:57 am    ::: Re: What if the US had a parliament? Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Suppose we allocated the 435 seats in the House of Representatives by the presidential vote? Using the Huntington-Hill method, the same way the house seats are allocated to the states (except that we're not guaranteeing any seats), and the popular vote totals from here, the make up would be...

220 Democrats
209 Republicans
4 Libertarians
2 Greens


Immediate result: Our House of representatives wouldn't have the false majority that currently exists. The fact that the majority of Americans voted against the Republican platform - by a wide margin - is combatted by the vapid house majority that was created by taking enough dem voters out of each district and plopping them into very strange looking all dem districts and allowing the original districts to now have a slim repub "majority." Based solely on this, the repubs dispute that they lost the election soundly and cling onto their manufactured "majority."



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61807
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/13 8:07 am    ::: Re: What if the US had a parliament? Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
pilight wrote:
Suppose we allocated the 435 seats in the House of Representatives by the presidential vote? Using the Huntington-Hill method, the same way the house seats are allocated to the states (except that we're not guaranteeing any seats), and the popular vote totals from here, the make up would be...

220 Democrats
209 Republicans
4 Libertarians
2 Greens


Immediate result: Our House of representatives wouldn't have the false majority that currently exists. The fact that the majority of Americans voted against the Republican platform - by a wide margin - is combatted by the vapid house majority that was created by taking enough dem voters out of each district and plopping them into very strange looking all dem districts and allowing the original districts to now have a slim repub "majority." Based solely on this, the repubs dispute that they lost the election soundly and cling onto their manufactured "majority."


A parliamentary system would lead to the quick breakup of the larger parties, and therefore a much more representative system.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/13 9:59 am    ::: Re: What if the US had a parliament? Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
A parliamentary system would lead to the quick breakup of the larger parties, and therefore a much more representative system.


I'd probably disagree with the "quick" part in any system, as even in systems like Israel's with no single member districts the main parties persist for a long, long time. What happens in those systems is that the major parties get a bit fractionated and depend on minor party coalition partners for their majorities. In Israel, that turns into pandering by both major parties for the religious parties, since neither major party seems to ever have a decisive enough victory to claim a majority on its own.

And if you had a system like England's, which has single member districts, the party makeup can stay extremely stable. In England, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have been around forever. The Liberal Democrats are a relatively recent merger (25 years old) of the very old Liberal Party and the SDP, which was a spin-off from Labour. You could really posit that the SDP spinoff was merely a reshuffling of some people from Labour to Liberal, which would mean that England's basically had 3 parties that meant anything for the last 150 years.


Ottie



Joined: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 305
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/13 9:54 pm    ::: Re: What if the US had a parliament? Reply Reply with quote

[quote="beknighted"]
pilight wrote:


And if you had a system like England's, which has single member districts, the party makeup can stay extremely stable. In England, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have been around forever. The Liberal Democrats are a relatively recent merger (25 years old) of the very old Liberal Party and the SDP, which was a spin-off from Labour. You could really posit that the SDP spinoff was merely a reshuffling of some people from Labour to Liberal, which would mean that England's basically had 3 parties that meant anything for the last 150 years.


That is a reasonably similar to how it has worked in Australia, but I'd say we are more strong geared to two-party system. Labor as one, the Liberal (capital 'L' conservative party) and Nationals coalition the other. The last half a century of compulsory voting and compulsory preferential system of voting (for federal elections) has maintained a very strong two system in Australia. http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/short_history_of_preferential_voting/

The Senate is elected by proportional representation and while dominated by the major parties, minor parties and even Independents have often held the balance of power there - Greens hold it at the moment.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61807
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 1:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Using the 2016 results, we would have

212 Democrat
202 Republican
14 Libertarian
5 Green
2 McMullin


Coalition time!

311323 votes would have gotten one seat



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13385



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 5:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why would you "allocate" them based on the presidential vote?

We had an actual district-by-district election just a month ago. The republicans won 241 seats, Dems won 194. If we had a parliamentary system, those 241 republicans would be forming a government right now.


A parliamentary system doesn't guarantee shorter elections. The max time in Britain is five years for elections. We already elect House members every two already.

And someone here is completely dreaming if they think one party is any more guilty of gerrymandering than the other. It's a time honored tradition. Heck, Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federslists tried to gerrymander James Madison out of the very first Congress. The term itself was coined in 1812.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8301



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 5:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would love a system that put some minority parties members like the Libertarians or Green Party in Washington. That possibility would get them more votes.




Last edited by tfan on 12/21/16 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13385



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 5:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
I would love a system that put some minority parties members like the Libertarians or Green Party in Washington.


Who are they supposed to represent?

A majority of people in every district didn't want them.

Or are you proposing to do away with states as well as geographically-based representation in the legislature?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61807
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Why would you "allocate" them based on the presidential vote?

We had an actual district-by-district election just a month ago. The republicans won 241 seats, Dems won 194. If we had a parliamentary system, those 241 republicans would be forming a government right now.


Because places with parliamentary systems aren't gerrymandered all to hell like most of our country is.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13385



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 6:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Why would you "allocate" them based on the presidential vote?

We had an actual district-by-district election just a month ago. The republicans won 241 seats, Dems won 194. If we had a parliamentary system, those 241 republicans would be forming a government right now.


Because places with parliamentary systems aren't gerrymandered all to hell like most of our country is.


Regardless of how districts are drawn, there's no particular reason to think legislative elections would follow presidential votes.

Look at the governorships - 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 independent. That's likely more reflective of local partisan voting patterns than the presidential vote.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8301



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 6:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
I would love a system that put some minority parties members like the Libertarians or Green Party in Washington.


Who are they supposed to represent?
A majority of people in every district didn't want them.

Or are you proposing to do away with states as well as geographically-based representation in the legislature?


Yeah, I guess it has to be the latter. Now that I think about it, I haven't a clue how the people that would represent the minor party percentage of the presidential vote would be selected. I guess that is up to the party members (which would leave independents out of the second phase) or party leaders to choose. Maybe just do the House as well, keeping the Senators to lobby for their particular state.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6443
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 6:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Why would you "allocate" them based on the presidential vote?

We had an actual district-by-district election just a month ago. The republicans won 241 seats, Dems won 194. If we had a parliamentary system, those 241 republicans would be forming a government right now.


Because places with parliamentary systems aren't gerrymandered all to hell like most of our country is.


Regardless of how districts are drawn, there's no particular reason to think legislative elections would follow presidential votes.

Look at the governorships - 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 independent. That's likely more reflective of local partisan voting patterns than the presidential vote.


I agree that allocating a Parliament on the basis of a national popular vote would be the least democratic and worst way to do it. Who, for example, under that system would be the members of the Parliament? A national popular vote wouldn't elect any individual persons to serve in the Parliament.

The most sensible way to allocate a Parliament and simultaneously to select the individuals to serve in the Parliament would be to do it by the existing Congressional districts, by the states via the gubernatorial elections, or by the states via the state legislature elections. By any of these local elective means, the Republicans in aggregate would dominate the national Parliament as of 2016.

That's consistent with the fact that the Republicans today have an overwhelming political mandate in this country -- when counting their dominance of the Presidency, the two branches of the federal Congress, the 50 governorships, and the 99 state legislative bodies -- unseen since the Reconstruction era of the 1870's.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6443
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/16 7:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Counties aren't gerrymandered. So another local way to elect a national Parliament would be to use the 3100 counties in the USA. Trump won 2600 and Clinton won 500.

mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18838



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/22/16 7:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Counties aren't gerrymandered. So another local way to elect a national Parliament would be to use the 3100 counties in the USA. Trump won 2600 and Clinton won 500.



It's really dumb to allocate based on land as opposed to people.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6443
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/22/16 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Counties aren't gerrymandered. So another local way to elect a national Parliament would be to use the 3100 counties in the USA. Trump won 2600 and Clinton won 500.



It's really dumb to allocate based on land as opposed to people.


How else could it be done?

Local persons running for a collective national political office -- call that collective a Parliament, a Legislature, a Senate, a House of Representatives, a House of Commons, a House of Lords, a Bundestag, a Duma -- run locally within defined geographic land areas such as towns, cities, counties, parishes, soviets, districts, states, ridings, wards, divisions, or other territorial names such as electoral areas.

In the U.S., the most natural geographic land areas within which local politicians could run for a national Parliament would be the existing states, the existing counties, the existing Congressional districts, or the existing state legislative geographical units. No matter which one of these is chosen, the collective aggregation of locally elected politicians -- the national Parliament -- would be overwhelmingly Republican as of 2017.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin