I'm no libertarian, but they have the right to be on the ballot

[Darth Xena]

Holy crap, I thought this was a new thread, and my contacts are drying out, and I read "I'm no libertarian, but they have a right to be on the toilet…"

[KingsGambit]

Holy crap, I thought this was a new thread, and my contacts are drying out, and I read "I'm no libertarian, but they have a right to be on the toilet…"

This gets into the main premise of the musical Urinetown.

[Teallaura]

What principle of contitutional law would they base that on?

There's nothing else to base it on - the proportions have to be assigned to something to even have proportional representation. You could base it on race, ethnicity or deodorant preference but in practice it is almost always party.

The only system that is compatible to PR is the electoral system - you could indeed change that to PR BUT you have to amend the Constitution and in so doing, specify what entity is represented proportionally. The College is probably the least understood and most disliked part of the American system - and no one has managed to get any serious momentum toward a PR system in it ever. (Personally, I'd oppose the move - why break a broken system worse when it hasn't done much, if any arguable harm as yet?)

The American system - Fed and most states which mirror it - was not designed with the idea of coalitions as power brokers. Washington, among others, was wary of political parties. The system is designed to balance one group against the other (the famous Balance of Power) with no body or group being dominant. The original, now modified design, balanced Fed v state as well - disastrously mangled by the Seventeenth Amendment.

Parties are recognized entities and are regulated. They are not, however, considered bodies of government. Frankly, under present law, I have no idea why anyone would bother with PR - parties have rather less power over members than one might think. That's largely because of the laws that reformed parties (well, sorta) to break the back room dealing so prevalent up through the Sixties. PR would be a step back - there's no purpose in giving parties greater control on power if they can't control their members. Minus that, you just get the murkier, more removed process that is antithetical to the US system - hence the hard sell I spoke of.

As to why PR must be amended in it's simply that the US system has nothing to base PR on - something would have to be specified.





In the morning I'm probably gonna rewrite this whole thing since I'm not convinced it's any more coherent than I am.

I miss sleep...

[Teallaura]

This gets into the main premise of the musical Urinetown.

It's a commie liberal plot!!!

[Kristian Joensen]

"There's nothing else to base it on - the proportions have to be assigned to something to even have proportional representation. You could base it on race, ethnicity or deodorant preference but in practice it is almost always party."

But you can specify this in a normal act. You don't have to mention parties in the constitution to do so.

Edit:

Statutory law like this as an example could proportional voting just fine: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=EL

I should add that "parties" in our system is nothing else than a list of people. Parties are completely unregulated in Faroese (and Danish for that matter as well) law.

Edit2:

Even individuals can be a party here.

[Teallaura]

"There's nothing else to base it on - the proportions have to be assigned to something to even have proportional representation. You could base it on race, ethnicity or deodorant preference but in practice it is almost always party."

But you can specify this in a normal act. You don't have to mention parties in the constitution to do so.

Edit:

Statutory law like this as an example could proportional voting just fine: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=EL

I should add that "parties" in our system is nothing else than a list of people. Parties are completely unregulated in Faroese (and Danish for that matter as well) law.

Edit2:

Even individuals can be a party here.

Let me get back to you - I'm having some real life stuff right now and I don't feel well. I need to reformat the argument - I left way too much out. PR actually opposes the spirit of the 17th Amend and is very contrary to the American mindset (we want direct elections whether or not it's a good idea). The Fed system is not set up to use indirect election and statutory law cannot correct it. But that is a long, complex argument (mostly because I'll have to explain some things I'd probably not bother with talking to another American because our backgrounds are similar. I'd need the same courtesy if we were discussing Denmark so it's not a criticism.) and I'm just not up to it today.

Give me a few days, okay?

[Starlight]

There's nothing else to base it on - the proportions have to be assigned to something to even have proportional representation. You could base it on race, ethnicity or deodorant preference but in practice it is almost always party.

The only system that is compatible to PR is the electoral system - you could indeed change that to PR BUT you have to amend the Constitution and in so doing, specify what entity is represented proportionally...

Parties are recognized entities and are regulated. They are not, however, considered bodies of government. Frankly, under present law, I have no idea why anyone would bother with PR - parties have rather less power over members than one might think. That's largely because of the laws that reformed parties (well, sorta) to break the back room dealing so prevalent up through the Sixties. PR would be a step back - there's no purpose in giving parties greater control on power if they can't control their members. Minus that, you just get the murkier, more removed process that is antithetical to the US system - hence the hard sell I spoke of.

As to why PR must be amended in it's simply that the US system has nothing to base PR on - something would have to be specified.

So this is all pretty much irrelevant nonsense, because you apparently simply don't understand how some of the proportional systems work.

In STV, parties don't have a status that is any different to what they currently have in the US. Individuals go on the ballot, not the parties. There would not need to be any change whatsoever to any laws or constitutions governing parties.

[Teallaura]

So this is all pretty much irrelevant nonsense, because you apparently simply don't understand how some of the proportional systems work.

In STV, parties don't have a status that is any different to what they currently have in the US. Individuals go on the ballot, not the parties. There would not need to be any change whatsoever to any laws or constitutions governing parties.

Now, I clearly stated I needed to rework that - you do like strawmen, don't you?

PR works by indirect election, idiot. The American Constitution requires direct election - the amendments count, you know.

The seat assignment is the main difference - you can't have PR without controlling that.

[Starlight]

PR works by indirect election, idiot. The American Constitution requires direct election - the amendments count, you know.

You appear to be thinking of party lists. STV doesn't have party lists. STV works by direct election, not indirect election.

There are various different types of PR. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect some of them would be found to be unconstitutional in the US. Therefore I've suggested that the US's best option is STV because it is a type of PR that preserves direct election of candidates and doesn't require any changes to existing law governing the status of parties.

[Kristian Joensen]

Sure, take your time Teal. For now I will just note that the 17th amendment concerns the Senate and not the House.

[Teallaura]

Sure, take your time Teal. For now I will just note that the 17th amendment concerns the Senate and not the House.

Yes, I know - but the issue is why and that had to do with protecting state power.

I'll be back!!!

[Teallaura]

SL, I'm not going to address your post but I will apologize. I should not have called you an idiot. My apologies.