Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 12 Jan 2016, 2:00 pm

Voters tend not to worry too much about process so it's always difficult to motivate people to campaign on these issues. In the States you also face the problem that it needs to be changed 51 times in different jurisdictions. It could be done though.

Of course, another issue you face is that there are effectively no centrist media organisations who might be able to lead the debate. All of your political journalism is rampantly partisan and far more interested in personality issues than in constitutional ones.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Jan 2016, 2:18 pm

And I would add to Sass' point that the partisan nature of US politics is the root of this, rather than your Constitutional structures - although they do help entrench certain aspects.

I think you would still have the issue with a Parliamentary Democracy tbh.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 12 Jan 2016, 2:25 pm

Well 1) we don't have parliamentary democracy; and 2) we'd still have those 51 jurisdictions; and 3) it sounds like the character of the politicians and media in the US is the issue, not the constitutional structures. At the end of the day, the worst kind of people can f*** up the best kind of system.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 12 Jan 2016, 2:44 pm

I'm not sure you can easily split them though. Perhaps if you had more balanced Congressional districts which were more competitive then the quality of your Congressmen would improve because they'd need to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents ? Maybe not, but you can't rule it out.

The various different jurisdictions in the American political system is a strength as well as a weakness of course. It allows for social experimentation on a scale that can't be so easily replicated in unitary systems. I can think of a few recent examples which illustrate the point. The obvious one is marijuana legalisation. If this was something which could only ever be changed at the central government level then it would never have happened, even though most politicians in most countries will privately tell you (on condition of anonymity of course) that the war on drugs is a failure. In America though it was possible for one state to act unilaterally, which prompted a couple more to follow suit. Give it another decade and they'll all have done it. We've seen similar developments with gay marriage and various other issues. Change can happen much more easily at a local level. It can easily be change for the worse, but it can be for the better too.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Jan 2016, 2:49 pm

JimHackerMP wrote:Well 1) we don't have parliamentary democracy; and 2) we'd still have those 51 jurisdictions; and 3) it sounds like the character of the politicians and media in the US is the issue, not the constitutional structures. At the end of the day, the worst kind of people can f*** up the best kind of system.

True, but it is easier to f*** up a system that is not the "best".

3) is not something out of nowhere. In any democracy, the politicians are only able to act as they do because enough voters will accept it. In any market, the media can only influence those who buy their products and their lines.

Either way, it would take popular pressure for change. But it won't be quick or straightforward.

2) can be in some manners influenced at a national level, and even possibly imposed in some cases. But again that would be challenging and limited especially without popular support. And Constitutional limits mean either amendments or Non-federal means - you can have Cross-State agreements.

1) is perhaps not that much of an issue
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 16 Jan 2016, 11:20 pm

Will leave more in a bit. In the mean time:

1) is perhaps not that much of an issue


Jeeze, glad someone finally said that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 1:40 pm

bbauska wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0

I must say that this is a surprise that the case is even before the Supreme Court. Should voting districts be based upon eligible voters or everyone (Children, disenfranchised felons, illegal aliens et. al.) that is in a district? As much as I feel that the representative is responsible for all in his/her district, the districts need to be based upon all who can legally vote.

To give more representation based on those who cannot vote is to imbalance the electorate.

A felon who is disenfranchised is that for a reason of their own choosing.
A child get vote at 18 (Amendment).
Illegal aliens get the vote when naturalized.

To base voting representation upon something that is not yet achieved is "sliding the scale" prematurely.
Looks like the Supreme Court Justices (all of them) disagree with you.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-evenwel-decision
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:35 pm

The court decided that states can draw their own legislative districts based on total population but did not reach the question as to whether they are required to do that or they could draw them based on number of voters. Thomas wrote a concurrence indicating that he thinks the states could draw boundaries based on voters or total population; Alito was more circumspect on the question, saying it was not ripe for determination. Neither of their concurrences were joined by other justices, which may indicate a 6-2 split at present that states must use total population in drawing districts. But we won't know for sure until the court decides the question.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:The court decided that states can draw their own legislative districts based on total population but did not reach the question as to whether they are required to do that or they could draw them based on number of voters. Thomas wrote a concurrence indicating that he thinks the states could draw boundaries based on voters or total population; Alito was more circumspect on the question, saying it was not ripe for determination. Neither of their concurrences were joined by other justices, which may indicate a 6-2 split at present that states must use total population in drawing districts. But we won't know for sure until the court decides the question.

Indeed. Bbauska's position was that states should have to use electorate not total population, and on that question all 8 Justices said no.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:49 pm

Yes 8-0 on that.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:56 pm

freeman3 wrote:Yes 8-0 on that.


My opinion does not change just because the Supreme court does not agree with me. It is just that...

Opinion.