Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 5:01 AM
333 online now:
PaulK, xongsmith (2 members, 331 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,044 Year: 28,650/21,208 Month: 716/1,847 Week: 91/475 Day: 1/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   The 2017 Republican Controlled U.S. Congress
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 46 of 71 (799646)
02-12-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Porosity
02-12-2017 1:43 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
Porosity writes:

private funding. Canada's federal election finance laws put limits on contributions to political parties and candidates. Only individuals — not corporations or trade unions — may donate.


That only goes back to the 1970s. We've had significant third parties at least as far back as the 1920s and 30s - notably Labour, Progressive, CCF, Social Credit - when there was little or no regulation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Porosity, posted 02-12-2017 1:43 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 2:48 PM ringo has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 47 of 71 (799647)
02-12-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
02-12-2017 1:31 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
Parliamentary vs Presidential system

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 1:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:27 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 48 of 71 (799648)
02-12-2017 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Theodoric
02-12-2017 2:24 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
Theodoric writes:

Parliamentary vs Presidential system


I know we don't have separate executive and legislative branches but what does that have to do with third parties?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2017 2:24 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 49 of 71 (799651)
02-12-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
02-12-2017 2:08 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
... We've had significant third parties at least as far back as the 1920s and 30s - notably Labour, Progressive, CCF, Social Credit - when there was little or no regulation.

Ballot access restrictions are part of the equation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0176268004000527

quote:
... The findings show that higher filing fees reduce both the number of major-party and minor-party candidates. However, filing fees are more effective in deterring minor-party candidates from contesting political office than major-party candidates. More stringent signature requirements reduce the number of major-party candidates.

For instance neither Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson were on the ballots in all states. The requirements vary from state to state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

quote:
The reasons why a country with free elections will evolve into a two-party system have been debated. A leading theory, referred to as Duverger's law, states that two parties are a natural result of a winner-take-all voting system.

quote:
Duverger's law:

In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism".[1][2] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle.

A two-party system often develops in a plurality voting system. In this system, voters have a single vote, which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. In plurality voting (i.e. first past the post), in which the winner of the seat is determined purely by the candidate with the most votes, several characteristics can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.[6][7]

A prominent restrictive feature unique to this system is purely statistical. Because the system gives only the winner in each district a seat, a party which consistently comes third (or even second) in every district will not gain any seats in the legislature, even if it receives a large minority of the vote. This puts geographically thinly spread parties at a significant disadvantage. ...


In the US presidential elections the winner must have >50% of the electoral votes, so third parties can disrupt this from happening (throwing the election into the House to decide who they want to be president, and it doesn't have to be a candidate -- this is what should have happened between Bush jr and Gore).

The electoral votes are won by "first past the post" (most votes whether majority or not), but all the electoral votes are then allotted by "winner take all" in every state but two, and this tends to put 3rd parties at an extreme disadvantage. This filters to down ballot candidates when people vote for all the party candidates with a single pick on the ballot.

For example Perot (running as independent) predominantly took votes from Bush senior in many states, so Clinton won those states by "first past the post" and took all their electoral votes by "winner take all" and that gave him the election.

So it is a two-step process, get more votes than other candidates to get all the state electoral votes to win the presidency.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 50 of 71 (799652)
02-12-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-12-2017 2:48 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
The Electoral College is a factor in Presidential elections but what about the Senate and House? What prevents third parties there?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 2:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 02-12-2017 3:35 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 4:31 PM ringo has responded
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2017 10:10 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29756
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 51 of 71 (799656)
02-12-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
02-12-2017 2:55 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
There are some and they have even elected some Representatives but of course the have little or no power in Congress. There were even third parties at the Presidential level but again, they simply have not attracted enough support. There are two Independents in the Senate.

The only Third Party that has organizations in all 50 sates is the Libertarian Party. The Green Party has organizations in 44 states while the Constitution Party has organizations in just over 20 states.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:55 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 52 of 71 (799660)
02-12-2017 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
02-12-2017 2:55 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
... but what about the Senate and House? What prevents third parties there?

We do see more in state houses, there has even an independent Governor fairly recently.

Many rep and sen votes are because of entire ticket votes, and the two parties fighting for president become strong parties in the states. The party in power as governor rules how elections are run, how the ballots are organized and what you have to do to get on the ballot.

Then you have issues like gerrymandering that affect how the opposition party, to say nothing of 3rd parties, can get elected.

The system is rigged by the party in power, which means you need a strong single contender to beat it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:55 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 02-13-2017 10:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 53 of 71 (799686)
02-13-2017 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
02-12-2017 2:55 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
The Electoral College is a factor in Presidential elections but what about the Senate and House? What prevents third parties there?

There is usually an Independent party candidate or two among the Congress folk. But those folk pretty much have to caucus with one or the other of the major parties in order to get anything done. Sanders is an Independent party Senator.

Generally speaking a few congress folk among a bunch of other folk are pretty ineffective unless they are in a position to determine outcomes with their votes. That makes it hard to get elected. Usually those folks are former Democrats or Republicans.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 2:55 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 54 of 71 (799688)
02-13-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-12-2017 4:31 PM


Re: SCOTUS on gerrymandering?
RAZD writes:

The party in power as governor rules how elections are run, how the ballots are organized and what you have to do to get on the ballot.


That explains a lot. Our system is more top-down. There are differences from province to province but they don't go much beyond opening and closing times for polling stations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 4:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16296
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 55 of 71 (799807)
02-15-2017 2:18 PM


Congress blocks rule barring mentally impaired from guns:

quote:
The Republican-led Senate voted Wednesday to block an Obama-era regulation that would prevent an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. The measure now goes to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.

These are truly bizarre times.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 02-16-2017 10:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29756
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 56 of 71 (799829)
02-16-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
02-15-2017 2:18 PM


But I feel so much safer under this Congress.
quote:
The chairman of the powerful panel — the main investigative committee in the House — sent a letter to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demanding to know why, in an attempt to raise awareness of the Zika virus, “CDC appears poised to make a sole source award to the Jim Henson Company for $806,000 to feature Sid the Science Kid in an educational program about the virus.”

Sid is really creeping me out. He asks questions like why he can't scratch his ear with his foot? His dog can!

You worry about little stuff but Rep. Jason Chaffetz is looking out for the rest of us.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 02-15-2017 2:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29756
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 57 of 71 (802543)
03-17-2017 1:16 PM


Congress decides to fuck the poor again.
Congress is proposing even greater cuts to Medicaid as well as adding a work requirement and changing to a block grant program to allow States to decide who to cover and what to cover.
source

And they are not even offering to buy dinner after the fuck job.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2017 4:07 PM jar has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


(1)
Message 58 of 71 (802554)
03-17-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
03-17-2017 1:16 PM


Re: Congress decides to fuck the poor again.
As a matter of fact they are taking the dinner away.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 03-17-2017 1:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 03-17-2017 5:40 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29756
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(3)
Message 59 of 71 (802564)
03-17-2017 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Theodoric
03-17-2017 4:07 PM


This Congress is Hooded Robin
This Congress seems to be Hooded Robin' instead of Robin Hood; its policy seems to be rob the poor and give to the rich. Take health care from the masses and give tax breaks to the rich.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2017 4:07 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2729
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 60 of 71 (803087)
03-23-2017 5:46 PM


So the Pubs are going to vote on Trump care. The hold outs will most likely cave.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone slipped in a exact copy of Obama care as the new bill and it passes sight unseen?

Because believe me no one knows wtf is in it at this point.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017