"The requirement for single-member congressional districts was the result of an act of congress from the 1960s, IIRC, and would not require a constitutional amendment to repeal."

What? That's nonsense.

so you are saying that all 50 states simultaneously (against the interests of some) would have to decide to go proportional. Otherwise, you would need a constitutional ammendment.

"If Democrats are one thing, they are not libertarians."

That is the kind of one-dimensional thinking that is wrong with this country. There are lots of democrat voters who are largely libertarian, but vote Democrat because of union loyalty, for instance. As a long-time Libertarian activist, I know of many Libertarians who came to the Libertarian Party from 'the left' - at least one of whom is now serving on the LP National Committee.

"so you are saying that all 50 states simultaneously (against the interests of some) would have to decide to go proportional. "

No, I am saying that 50%+1 of the congress and the president would have to be willing to repeal the anti-PR law that was passed decades ago. Then state legislatures would have the freedom to enact laws that would allow electing congressional representatives through PR, as one or two states still do for their presidential electors.

"That is the kind of one-dimensional thinking that is wrong with this country. There are lots of democrat voters who are largely libertarian, but vote Democrat because of union loyalty, for instance."

Maybe so. But are a third of them that way? You'll need roughly that much to move to my Serious Libertarians to keep the Democrats from winning. That's the point.


As for PR, it really sounds like you're misunderstanding something there. I don't really know the issue, but your position sounds very wrong. Links?

Could you have a multi-party primary? I mean that's kinda how it works in france and i don't think i like it that much... There is still the left and the right, but you get more diversity. And the cemter left and center right can form a coalition, in the US the party coalitions are nowhere near as fluid - though you do see movement from one party to the other, indicating how close they are on a large number of issues (SOME republicans and SOME democrats are very close to the center and likey differ on less issues between themselves than they differ with radical members of their own party...)

I believe in a healthy clash between two different wings, one tending toward solutions coming from society and the other tending toward solutions coming from government, that ultimately need to approach the center to get a majority and hence represent somewhat of the "spirit of the people".

I used to be a big fan of multi-party democracies and an advocat for PR. But my enthusiasm for both has waned following the UK Con-dem coalition. A hung parliament seems to allow for parties to throw their manifesto commitments away to the extent that they no longer represent their voters. By their actions the Lib-dems in particular have put back PR by a 100 years.

I know that a two party state is far from ideal but at least the winner tries to follow through on their manifesto, coalitions are a fudge.

The larger point lost here is what Maniac said, your ideologically pure third parties still have to work with the dems or gop to get anything done. What you lose is accountability. Who do you punish in a coalition?

British politics is complicated. But from a distance I'd say this:

Nick Clegg should have done one of two things;
1) Become chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister at the same time
2) Support an all-conservative government from parliament without participating it

By taking the Deputy PM position that just puts the focus on what he's not: PM.

*in it

@ Red

I have to disagree. If there's one thing that could make Cleggy more unpopular than he already is it would be to become the chancellor in a time of cuts. I don't think the second option would even have been possible. The Lib-Dems are hard enough to make support the government when they're actually in it. If Clegg had tried to force them to support from the opposition benches he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Truth is I actually have a lot of respect for Clegg. I am convinced he chose his path with the intent of doing the maximum amount of good for the country, and knew he and his party would take a hit (probably he didn't imagine quite how large a hit) because of it. I genuinely believe the government is better with the Lib-Dems in it than it would be without them (even if there was a small Conservative majority).

@ Putin "Who do you punish in a coalition?"

Both of them, it seems. The reality is that no one in Britain is holding the Conservatives less accountable than if they were running the show on their own. That they're punishing the Lib-Dems too isn't diluting accountability one iota.

It's not so bad to be perceived as unpopular, or even be unpopular. If you make cuts in difficult times, and you explain that you have to make cuts, because times are difficult, he will show he has the courage to do something for his country when the weather's bad. If the reason he didn't claim the chancellorship for himself because he'd be unpopular, then he's the saddest politician ever.
Anyways, I come from a country that I don't ever had a /non/-coalition government, and the second party always takes finance.

*I don't think ever had

Unpopular with the public and his party to the point that he could no longer keep his job. He's not afraid of being disliked, but he is afraid of making the Lib-Dem brand so toxic that they never recover. Besides which the role of chancellor in the UK comes with a fair amount of freedom to act independently and power second only to the PM. There wasn't a chance in hell of the Conservatives letting him have it.

"There wasn't a chance in hell of the Conservatives letting him have it."

Why not? What if he would have insisted they give it and otherwise support labour? Or support nothing at all?

Then he would have ended up supporting Labour or nothing at all. Chancellor has too much power for the Conservatives to have given up.

So they'd rather have had no power at all (Labour + LibDem government) than a little less of it by giving up Finance, which, by the way, you can still make agreements about in which you let the Conservative say weigh heavily. That's a bizarre power calculation. Evidently, I don't understand British politics :-)

Finance is big over here. If Clegg was Chancellor the government would be a dog with two heads that didn't like each other. As things stand the government is a dog with a small bird on its shoulder who acts as a conscience. The latter is far more stable. The former would have torn itself apart.

Well alright. But anyways. "Third parties" suck.

Invictus, could you explain this?

""The requirement for single-member congressional districts was the result of an act of congress from the 1960s, IIRC, and would not require a constitutional amendment to repeal."

What? That's nonsense. "

Are you saying that's incorrect, or a bad idea? Because it's not incorrect -- it was a contentious issue after the civil rights movement, and it was finally settled (if I recall correctly) when in 1967 Congress banned at-large and multi-member districts in congressional elections. If you're arguing it's a bad idea, then I agree.

We had a "hung Parliament" after our last election in Australia

to put it in context -- we had 12 years of ALP party government ( Labour Party )
then 12 years of Conservative government ( alliance between Liberal Party & National party -- the National party is the renamed conservative Country party )
where the Governments had a majority in our "Lower House" but not in the "Upper house"

We had a "Political crisis" in 1975 when the Conservative controlled Upper House
blocked supply ( refused to pass the Budget --funding for govt ) for a majority in Lower house ALP government,
and the Governor General dismissed the ALP government, an election was held and the Liberal party - Country party won govt in the Lower house, but lost it's control of the upper house.

Since 1975 the trend has been to keep the Upper house balanced by independents,
or a minor party such as Aust Democrats & now Greens party --
--only once since 1975 has a government had a majority in both houses, and that was overwhelmingly changed at the subsequent election back to "balance of power" in upper house with independents & greens

so after the 12 years of ALP & 12 years of Conservative alliance Liberals & Nationals
we then had a one term majority in Lower house ALP government

Then the Conservative alliance ( the Liberal Party & Country Party or "National " party as it is now named ) snatched Defeat from the jaws of Victory and we got a "hung Parliament where the ALP had an advantage of one over Liberal -National alliance
with 3 independent ex National party chaps plus a single Greens party chap

The 3 independent country electorate chaps plus the Greens chap decided to support the ALP form Government

So we have a "minority" ALP government supported by 4 independents in the Lower House
The upper house has ALP & Liberal - Nationals roughly equal with the balance of power held by Greens and independents eg one is from my state and is basically an anti Pokie machine / gambling activist who hade been very successful in our State parliament and then moved to Federal parliament.

So it's a bit messy, but the minority ALP government has managed to push 300 odd Bills through both houses and functions quite well considering the political circumstances.

So we have
Liberal Party & National party ( essentially conservatives )
ALP or Labour party ( moderate socialists or rampant communists depending on one's view )
Greens Party ( growing in power & taken over balance of power in upper house from now defunct Democrat party )

and Independents -- Right wing religious chaps such as "Family First party " or independent

plus Independent "anti Pokie machine activist"

Of course the ALP and Lib-Nationals can always out vote the Independents any time they choose to agree.

The Liberal party controls the Liberal & Nationals alliance and after the election defeat 2 elections back tried several leaders, had a very smart business savvy moderate leader, but ditched him for a far more extreme right wing leader ( educated by Jesuits etc ) and it was this leader ( Tony Abbott ) who led them to a narrow defeat when they should have won hands down. So his strategy has been one of constant opposition, scaremongering etc etc -- something of a sore loser and has been hoping for a failure of minority ALP government to bring an early election-- hasn't happened & most unlikely
to happen.

So we have 3 major parties, with a few minor parties and independents for over 30 years and we manage to have stable government

I think you will find the greatest critics of small parties are the two (or in our case 3 ) major parties & the big parties hate the idea of Independents -- I think that may also be why a lot of voters like to say "we'll fuck up your schemes to have "total control" of both houses and no "watchdogs in place".

The bottom line is it's the voters who determine the result & my view is that any chap or woman who stands for election and gets enough voters support has the right to enter parliament.

The worst system is undoubtedly a one party state eg North Korea or Iran
I'd hate to be forced to live in a one party theocratic state

The recently departed Gore Vidal had the view that in the USA that both your Republican and Democrat parties essentially represent the "property owning class" in America, ie the same segment of American society

I do not understand the US political system well enough to make any firm statement about what is or is not a good outcome for the USA, plus I am not a citizen of the USA,
so it's not my place to "instruct" you on what choice you should make.

I do find it curious that so few of you actually vote
we have a "compulsory " requirement to vote although if you fail to vote the authorities
do not punish you harshly for it, you might get a "please explain" letter and any half reasonable excuse will do eg kids were sick / "her indoors" was on the warpath will
suffice--- my cousin refused to vote from the moment he got conscripted and sent to the Vietnam war -- so did not vote from 1966 for 40 years and was never punished or fined,as he used to say " what can they do to me, send me to another war, and jail would be a doddle by comparison ?"

Anyway the result is we get a voter turnout in the high 90 % so at least the person or parties that do get elected can reasonably claim "legitimacy"

So I would suggest that in a sophisticated, pluralistic society there is nothing to really fear about having Independents and minor parties, and there are probably benefits, in that it forces the major parites to "lift their game"

I suspect the bigger problem in the USA is how to control & reform the "funding" of politicians & political parties

But at least you do not have the tyranny of the one party state, although Gore Vidal would have disagreed with me on that point

"Both of them, it seems."

Yet quite a number of people voted for the Lib Dems thinking they were left-leaning Labourites, and did not want to elevate the Tories to power. The fact that they did it anyway speaks to the lack of control the voting public has over the dealings their party leaders end up doing and lets the latter off the hook. Better examples are Germany and their 'grand coalitions', or Ireland and their bizarre Labour Party-Fine Gael coalitions. The fact that you don't know who ultimately is going to be joining a coalition after the election dilutes accountability, generally speaking.