superglucose wrote:Andrew Jackson was a democrat
George Washington was specifically unaligned and in his farewell address warned against political parties as a source of corruption and foreign influence while taking votes and debates away from the actual issues and instead making every decision a question of "them vs us" which would not help the nation in any way.
He kind of was a genius.
While George Washington avoided party politics, he was decidedly a Federalist in his views.
Karilyn wrote:You just sold me, particularly by comparing it to the historical choosing of Senators by state legislatures instead of by vote. I have been a strong supporter of returning to popular vote election of Representatives, and appointment by state legislatures of the Senate, as I think it is a much superior system; giving weight simultaneously to popular vote AND appointment. I like a system that has both, because appointment helps compensate for an uneducated voter-base in an all-popular-vote system, and popular vote helps prevent corruption relative to an all-appointment system.
To apply the same thing to Presidency, of the Representatives and Senate electing the president, would be an excellent improvement to the system. It improves the layers on both sides, further reducing both corruption and uneducated voter problems, AND gives strength to third parties.
You have convinced me of the superiority of the Parliamentary system. Who says you can't convince anybody on the Internet?
EDIT: Another major benefit I see is removing the focus off the President. There's a major problem in the US with people focusing on the President and ignoring their congressional representative, which allows for more congressional corruption as they are not held under the same microscope that presidents are (not that presidents can't be corrupt, but they have a lower corruption than congress).
Your desires are conflicting. You want proportionality, but indirect elections. Indirect elections decrease
proportionality because a simple majority at the intermediate level can ensure 100% victory at the top level. This does nothing to improve third parties, and actually makes second parties even weaker. We already have a system like this for electing the President, the Electoral College, and it's terrible.
A parliamentary system does not remove the focus on the President either. In fact, it makes the problem worse. Because now your vote for parliament is also your vote for president/prime minister, so in practice you end up voting based on who you want to be Prime Minister, not who you want to represent you.
Indirect elections are the only system less representative than FPTP, and should be avoided. I would instead suggest looking into other direct voting systems, like Proportional Voting (PR), Instant-Runoff Vote (IRV), and Approval Voting (AV).
Also, don't confuse proportional voting with the parliamentary system.
So you're voting for the party, not the individual?
Cause a lot of Republicans and Democrats vote across party lines; that's why the chart shows "far" and "center" versions of both Republican and Democrat; it's roughly a measure of how much the politician crossed side during a vote. If you're not voting for an individual, it seems like you would be severely limited in knowing what the person will actually do
once they are in office. Do people not vote against party lines as often in a Parliamentary system? Do parties have some sort of well-defined organizational body that kicks people out if they vote outside of the party's ideology too many times?
I'm curious but not sold yet without more information. I am extremely excited about the idea of giving 5% of the seats for 5% of the votes, but uncomfortable about the appearance of voting for parties instead of individuals.
All of this analysis is correct for proportional voting. It's the primary flaw with the system. There are other systems, like IRV and AV, that allow voting for individuals while still being more proportional than FPTP, but they're not as proportional as PR.
mbklein wrote:Can someone explain to me what it means when one of the red lines flows in from the far left to join the rest of the red bloc, and vice versa?
Red and Blue mean "left voting" and "right voting". The left and right sides mean "left party" and "right party". So a red line on the left is a Democrat who was center-right based on votes, and vice-versa.
Ah, good call on the Reagan-era Central American 'actions'. I was too young to remember much of events back then, so they completely slipped my mind when I was trying to come up with exceptions other than Bushes. =)
There are a lot of other exceptions, if you look closely. The US first got involved in Vietnam, at a low level, under Eisenhower. The Civil War started in response to the election of Lincoln. And the Spanish-American War was under William McKinley's tenure. You could also argue that Woodrow Wilson and FDR did not "start" WWII.