I for one am praying for an AI to just take over... lol
See the companies squirm trying to figure out how to bribe a machine.
See the companies squirm trying to figure out how to bribe a machine.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Why is the American voting system so flawed?
- Thread starter Taleweaver
- Start date
- Views 5,489
- Replies 48
- Likes 3
lobbyists, liberals and traitorous right wingers who flood our country with illegals intentionally, and a left-wing media that doesn't report the truth to the American people, leaving a good majority of us stupid and willing to vote for someone as obviously evil as Hillary Clinton.
This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.
This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
Instead of writing a treatise on why you don't like the American electoral system, you should instead research how other countries do it and suggest ways the American system could change to be fairer, drawing inspiration from other countries.
What I've been saying all along
Don't you guys have a ranked/"preferential" voting system down in Australia, rather than one where you only get to vote for one candidate?
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,736
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,533
- Country
Maine is using ranked choice voting for state races this year as well. Utah and Oregon both passed ranked choice voting as well, but I believe only for local races.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06...-test-ranked-choice-voting-in-june-primaries/
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
The country is broken into electorates, the size of which could be several small country towns or a suburb of a city (done by population). You vote for who you want to represent your electorate, not for the prime minister you want. You can either number all the candidates in order, so if your number 1 candidate has the smallest number of votes your vote changes to your second preference and then everything is recounted etc. If you choose to not number all the boxes, each candidate makes a series of preference deals so that if they don't make it, the vote passes to someone they agree with. There can be a dozen or more parties. At the end, the party with the majority of the seats becomes the majority, and their leader is the prime minister. The leader can change any time so someone none of the public voted for can become prime minister - I learned recently that only 5 of the last 13 prime ministers initially came into power through an election.
How can this help the American system? They should have preferences, so you can vote for the person you really want without worrying about wasting your vote. Bernie might have become president if this was done. Half the people who voted Trump probably only did so because they hated Clinton so much. They could have, instead, voted for Bernie and then put Trump as second preference. Or put Bernie, then someone else, then Trump. Etc.
Last edited by Quantumcat,
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,736
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,533
- Country
That's a vast overestimate, but yeah there were a portion who did feel screwed over by Bernie's loss in the primary and followed the trolls over to the Trump side. It only took ~80,000 votes in 2 states to win the electoral college, so that's potentially enough Bernie bros to swing it. In that regard you're correct.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
I count 41 in my state last election! http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/snsw/
Wow, this reads like straight out of mein kampf.
Why is the US the best in the world? We have rampant social inequality. Sure it's great for the top 20% or so, but beneath that is middle America - which is not doing so well.
Just go see how many people are in line at food banks in a poor neighborhood. In some of these places a whole block won't even have one kid who graduates high school.
I've never read Mein Kampf, but if that sounds like Mein Kampf, then maybe Mein Kampf wasn't so bad?
Whether you want to admit it or not, that post was entirely true. It makes no sense for a country to want it's borders entirely open, which is something liberals are fighting for. A country without borders is no country at all, and any country that let's just anyone in cannot last because those who come in, inevitably will bring their cultures with them, will not acclimate to their new host country's ways, and because of that, if the time ever comes, will not have the honor and courage to fight and die for this country. Just look at the sort of people who are coming here illegally, and even as "refugees" from other places besides Mexico. These are people who are leaving their own countries to rot at the hands of drug cartels, terrorists. They can't even muster the courage to fight for their own lands. Why would they defend ours? Instead they come here, wave they their former country's flags, and call us racist if we say they don't belong here. They tell us our ways are wrong, when they fled HERE for safety and to take advantage of our stupid welfare policies.
You think we have rampant social inequality? Yeah, let's compare that to any 3rd world country. You think they're "equal" in mexico? You think they're "equal" in the middle east? "Rampant social inequality" is a joke. Equality in success can never happen because not everyone is as smart, as productive as the best people. You think the dude who never pushed himself as hard as a Bill Gates should have the sort of success Gates has had? I don't know if you realize the sort of enormous amount of effort that goes into making one's self a billionaire, a millionaire, or even a hundred thousandaire. The American way is simply the natural way. If you don't go out and hunt for your food, you ain't gonna fucking eat and you and your pride will starve. If you don't defend your pride from threats, your your children will be killed, your women taken and raped, and your entire way of life will no longer exist.
As for your last paragraph. You want to talk about people in line for food? Why don't you go to fucking Venezuela and see the liberal utopia in action? A whole country in line for food because of a successfully executed liberal policy meant to drain a country of resources. Next to that, the food banks you mentioned in poor neighborhoods are nothing. The people who go there literally get food for free at least. In venezuela, they cant even afford to give away free food because they hardly have any.
Whether you want to admit it or not, that post was entirely true. It makes no sense for a country to want it's borders entirely open, which is something liberals are fighting for. A country without borders is no country at all, and any country that let's just anyone in cannot last because those who come in, inevitably will bring their cultures with them, will not acclimate to their new host country's ways, and because of that, if the time ever comes, will not have the honor and courage to fight and die for this country. Just look at the sort of people who are coming here illegally, and even as "refugees" from other places besides Mexico. These are people who are leaving their own countries to rot at the hands of drug cartels, terrorists. They can't even muster the courage to fight for their own lands. Why would they defend ours? Instead they come here, wave they their former country's flags, and call us racist if we say they don't belong here. They tell us our ways are wrong, when they fled HERE for safety and to take advantage of our stupid welfare policies.
You think we have rampant social inequality? Yeah, let's compare that to any 3rd world country. You think they're "equal" in mexico? You think they're "equal" in the middle east? "Rampant social inequality" is a joke. Equality in success can never happen because not everyone is as smart, as productive as the best people. You think the dude who never pushed himself as hard as a Bill Gates should have the sort of success Gates has had? I don't know if you realize the sort of enormous amount of effort that goes into making one's self a billionaire, a millionaire, or even a hundred thousandaire. The American way is simply the natural way. If you don't go out and hunt for your food, you ain't gonna fucking eat and you and your pride will starve. If you don't defend your pride from threats, your your children will be killed, your women taken and raped, and your entire way of life will no longer exist.
As for your last paragraph. You want to talk about people in line for food? Why don't you go to fucking Venezuela and see the liberal utopia in action? A whole country in line for food because of a successfully executed liberal policy meant to drain a country of resources. Next to that, the food banks you mentioned in poor neighborhoods are nothing. The people who go there literally get food for free at least. In venezuela, they cant even afford to give away free food because they hardly have any.
A token search might have saved you some embarrassment right there.
A liberals fighting for entirely open borders? The few I have seen espouse such ideals would not typically fall under the definition of liberal (liberalism at its heart being rather concerned with the welfare of the individual rather than a collective, which is where I typically find the open borders set). Or is it just that you are using liberal as a slur without an understanding of the concepts underpinning it*? Certainly I doubt they would differ much on your assessment of unfettered immigration, though I would say fighting and dying for ideals rather a country is a better plan. Similarly what threats do you imagine there to be in the US? There is a lot of ocean either side and amazing natural defences top and bottom.
The brain/skills drain of places is a rather interesting concept, amusingly the internal US South's brain drain providing a considerable amount of data.
*more amusingly I imagine you would describe yourself as right wing after a fashion, your talking points certainly reflecting many I find there. If you are going to go with the two party thing then arguably you would want to be attracting the people that would fall under liberalism as many of said same seem to be rather unimpressed with a lot of the present "left" politics. If we must do hashtag politics then #walkaway I believe to be the umbrella term for it.
What about Venezuela? It is without question a sad tragedy, however I am not sure what real relevance that has to the point being made. If you are not careful you will dip into a debate tactic sometimes "whataboutism" wherein one attempts to deflect from an issue by presenting another unpleasant event. Typically considered a rather disingenuous tactic. Or if you prefer just because somewhere else is comparatively a shithole does not mean you take your eyes off the prize, or maybe lead by example rather than resting on your laurels.
Going further there social inequality has nothing to do with results, some confuse the concept and I too find it intensely aggravating. A phrasing that might be worth contemplating is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
A liberals fighting for entirely open borders? The few I have seen espouse such ideals would not typically fall under the definition of liberal (liberalism at its heart being rather concerned with the welfare of the individual rather than a collective, which is where I typically find the open borders set). Or is it just that you are using liberal as a slur without an understanding of the concepts underpinning it*? Certainly I doubt they would differ much on your assessment of unfettered immigration, though I would say fighting and dying for ideals rather a country is a better plan. Similarly what threats do you imagine there to be in the US? There is a lot of ocean either side and amazing natural defences top and bottom.
The brain/skills drain of places is a rather interesting concept, amusingly the internal US South's brain drain providing a considerable amount of data.
*more amusingly I imagine you would describe yourself as right wing after a fashion, your talking points certainly reflecting many I find there. If you are going to go with the two party thing then arguably you would want to be attracting the people that would fall under liberalism as many of said same seem to be rather unimpressed with a lot of the present "left" politics. If we must do hashtag politics then #walkaway I believe to be the umbrella term for it.
What about Venezuela? It is without question a sad tragedy, however I am not sure what real relevance that has to the point being made. If you are not careful you will dip into a debate tactic sometimes "whataboutism" wherein one attempts to deflect from an issue by presenting another unpleasant event. Typically considered a rather disingenuous tactic. Or if you prefer just because somewhere else is comparatively a shithole does not mean you take your eyes off the prize, or maybe lead by example rather than resting on your laurels.
We can surely aspire to better than that, and indeed biology itself would say we do. Also the entire point of socialisation, later farming and such, was to produce excess to allow specialisation and such, might something there play into this?
Going further there social inequality has nothing to do with results, some confuse the concept and I too find it intensely aggravating. A phrasing that might be worth contemplating is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
He's a self-proclaimed nationalist, so you may not be that far off
Why delete anything? I'd like to see what he said about me.
What threats are these in the US? Liberals, for one, who are allowing the other major threat in. They want to overrun us with people who do not hold our values. That alone is an existential threat.
What about whataboutism? It isn't a disingenuous tactic. It's a tactic that shows yet another example of failed socialism. Socialism is what? Socialism is something liberals have been trying to push on America for far too long. It fails everywhere. Actually, let me rephrase that. Socialism has actually never failed. It has actually been an incredible success everywhere it has been implemented, because it is never meant to benefit the masses. A great way to know what liberals have in store for us here in America is to see what they're doing in other countries where they don't have the sort of laws that we do here preventing them from implementing their demonic bullshit.
Producing excess does not mean we have infinite resources.
Equality of opportunity. It's the same fucking thing. You can't have equality of opportunity in the sense that folks like you like to think of it. Opportunities in the job field are based, a lot of the time, on who you know. If you know the right people, you have more of an opportunity than a person who doesn't know the right folks.
If you were raised by parents with their heads screwed on properly, then you have a better chance of being intelligent enough to know that if you go to college, you should probably do so for a field that will actually net you results instead of some gender studies bullshit. You'd be smart enough, also, to think properly and logically. That alone would give you more opportunities than someone who was raised by parents who didn't give a flying fuck.
However, when thought of logically, "equality of opportunity" is something we all already fucking have. We ALL have the opportunity to make something better of oyrselves, to improve ourselves in our own unique ways. The problem is whether people take advantage of that opportunity. Some may have to overcome hurdles that other don't, but that's just natural beause not everyone is the same. Not everyone grows up in the same fucking situation. Some people might have parents who were smart, and saved up money so their kids don't have to struggle. That isn't a sign of being spoiled, it's a sign that the system fucking worked and that this kid's parents did the right thing. There ain't nothign stopping a woman from going into a stem field. Most women are just not interested in that, hence why it's male dominated. It isn't a lack of opportunity. There's nothing wrong with that either. Romance novels are female dominated. Do we see men going on about not having opportunities in the romance novel genre? No, men just don't really like that shit so we generally don't read the genre.
What embarrassment? I'm not embarrassed at all. It doesn't matter what your definition of liberal is, or what the classic definition of liberal is. These people call themselves liberal, so I will address them as such.
What threats are these in the US? Liberals, for one, who are allowing the other major threat in. They want to overrun us with people who do not hold our values. That alone is an existential threat.
What about whataboutism? It isn't a disingenuous tactic. It's a tactic that shows yet another example of failed socialism. Socialism is what? Socialism is something liberals have been trying to push on America for far too long. It fails everywhere. Actually, let me rephrase that. Socialism has actually never failed. It has actually been an incredible success everywhere it has been implemented, because it is never meant to benefit the masses. A great way to know what liberals have in store for us here in America is to see what they're doing in other countries where they don't have the sort of laws that we do here preventing them from implementing their demonic bullshit.
Producing excess does not mean we have infinite resources.
Equality of opportunity. It's the same fucking thing. You can't have equality of opportunity in the sense that folks like you like to think of it. Opportunities in the job field are based, a lot of the time, on who you know. If you know the right people, you have more of an opportunity than a person who doesn't know the right folks.
If you were raised by parents with their heads screwed on properly, then you have a better chance of being intelligent enough to know that if you go to college, you should probably do so for a field that will actually net you results instead of some gender studies bullshit. You'd be smart enough, also, to think properly and logically. That alone would give you more opportunities than someone who was raised by parents who didn't give a flying fuck.
However, when thought of logically, "equality of opportunity" is something we all already fucking have. We ALL have the opportunity to make something better of oyrselves, to improve ourselves in our own unique ways. The problem is whether people take advantage of that opportunity. Some may have to overcome hurdles that other don't, but that's just natural beause not everyone is the same. Not everyone grows up in the same fucking situation. Some people might have parents who were smart, and saved up money so their kids don't have to struggle. That isn't a sign of being spoiled, it's a sign that the system fucking worked and that this kid's parents did the right thing. There ain't nothign stopping a woman from going into a stem field. Most women are just not interested in that, hence why it's male dominated. It isn't a lack of opportunity. There's nothing wrong with that either. Romance novels are female dominated. Do we see men going on about not having opportunities in the romance novel genre? No, men just don't really like that shit so we generally don't read the genre.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
Are you saying it's ok for someone else's choices to affect what you're able to do? What happened to land of the free home of the brave? This would be the opposite of freedom.
If your parents aren't rich, you're cut off from ever accessing many things in life (e.g. going to university or having quality healthcare) and restricted from having choices available that could help your kids. Of course you think this is OK as long as you're on the "haves" side of the haves/have nots divide.
If your parents had made beytter choices, they might have been better prepared and able to give their kids more opportunities. Sure.
You think I'm on the haves? id on't even fucking have health care right now despite the fact that I currently work a very physical job overnights. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
if you can'tgo to university, then find somehting fucking else to do. You don't need to go to univesity to be successful. Go to a fucking trade school. Go to a library and use their computers to browse Youtube and learn a skill. Do fucking somehting.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
So ... we all have 'opportunities' ... and they're all 'equal' ... yet some people get opportunities others don't. This is not a contradiction, how? If I can afford to go to an elite private school, then go to Harvard and get my tuition fees paid, and become a lawyer and make a six figure income by the time I'm 25, but you, who are smarter, could only go to the local public school, didn't get into Harvard, can't afford to even go to a community college, and are forced to take up unpaid internships and live hand to mouth for 10 years before you even crack a living wage, and then you die of tuberculosis because you couldn't afford healthcare - this is equality of opportunity, in your eyes?
Do you not think it is more equal to have university fees limited by government regulation, fees subsidised by the government, and a no-interest loan given to anybody who can get into university based on their school marks, which they don't have to begin to pay back until they are earning a decent wage (if they never earn a decent wage they never need pay it back, since university obviously didn't help them much) - which allows anybody to go to university, rich or not, who is smart and capable? Then your own fate really is in your hands. Do you think it is fairer that those with poor parents never get to have an education and be the best they can be? They had no part in their parents' choices, but they have to suffer by them?
Do you not think it is more equal to have medicine prices capped, and subsidise doctor visits and medical procedures in hospital, so that if anyone is sick they can be treated, and don't need to die of a disease that's easy to treat? Isn't that giving everyone opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a civilised society (i.e. advances in medicine)? Do you really think it is more equal that people with no money, because their parents had no money, have to die of treatable illnesses, while those with more money get to be treated?
Sorry, but I thought that this would speak for itself. I'm from Belgium, I really don't think our system is perfect by any means. However, I dare say that when compared to the USA, we have a de facto better system when it comes to democracy in terms of "ruling by the people". Let's see...
1) we have a good handfull of competing parties. And too many posts, but I'll spare you a boring difference between regional and federal government AND between Flanders and Wallonie. But each election, we get to vote for the following parties:
-PVDA: this party is what passes for extreme left, and most likely described as "communist scum" in the USA. To be honest...they're not that far off.
-Groen: a mainly left-side party with strong emphasis on the environment
-SP-A: classic left. mainly concerned with affordable jobs. Basically the union's choice. Bernie Sanders would probably fit either in here best.
-CD&V: the most centered party. Concerned with whatever is politically hot (and therefore not really standing for anything in particular).
-VLD: the classic employer's party. Loves the free market, but is about center-right
-NV-A: initially elected because they want to split up Flanders, but since they're in government they just have some right-ish agenda.
-Vlaams Blok: basically the party for racists. Ironically enough: even though often seen as 'extreme right' on the streets (which is also why other parties downright refuse to form a government with them), even they don't dream about following Trump's stances.
-a few blanks. Each election, you've got a few jokers. Small parties that are either throwaway votes (I'll get to that) or just focus on one particular issue
...and that's just on Flanders's side. Wallon has differently named and lead parties, but who are sort of similar.
Result: none of that "I have to vote for the least evil" bullshit. If you don't like a party's stance, you just pick another one. Not many people go the whole spectrum, but depending how they fare they might rise or lower in the polls.
Note: we only get to vote for one party, and from one person within that party (no, this shouldn't be the party leader...you can vote for anyone within). I'd much prefer it if we could rank these parties in terms of importance rather than just voting for one, but alas. Oh, and even better: I want to be able to fucking vote for Wallon parties, damnit!
2) once the votes are counted, the percentage of votes each party had determines the amount of governmental power might have. At this point, the parties start talking to each other, because a representing government needs to consist of the majority of what the people voted for. This can be a problem if all the parties have roughly the same amount of votes (and different ideologies), but that's where compromising comes in.
Result: none of that "I represent 51% of the voters, so screw the rest of the population" bullshit. Let alone that "I have less votes but in better positions, so I call ALL the shots".
3) influence is a tricky one, but here too, the different parties, alliances and opposition help smooth things out. In both our countries, it's almost unheard that someone within the party critiques someone from their own party. But there can be plenty of critique from the opposition, or - much harder to deal with - another party in the government. As it stands, NV-A and CD&V are on some sort of cold war against each other. But because they're both in the government and they both can make the government fall if they leave, they are forced to settle their differences and come to agreements.
The influence of lobbying groups...I've got to admit I don't know much about that. I'm inclined to believe that they have a harder time because groups need to bribe multiple parties AND keep it secret for others, but again: I'm not too familiar with that on our end. One study revealing that the Belgian government is among the least corrupt in the world is obviously nice, but hardly overwhelming evidence.
On media, we're different in that we still do have state television. These are more or less obligated to give each party airtime depending on their popularity and (within reasons) to report rather unbiassed. When there's upcoming elections (like what'll happen in about three months from now), there is a "no commercial period" forced on the parties. While that's obviously hard to truly maintain (a couple weeks ago, I've heard of a mini-scandal: two NV-A politicians walked around in campaign T-shirts), it's nowhere NEAR the circus that it is in America.
Result: a more civil climate among politicians. It's still nowhere near as it should be (politicians still sort-of try to shift credit to them and blame to others), but it's easy to see which ones we prefer.
...and one I want to bring up while it's not mentioned in my opening post:
4) make voting obligated. This is rather controversial, and even in our country not many think our obligation to vote is a good thing. To those, I'd like to point out American situations that reflect the other side of a right to vote as opposed to a duty.
-since we have to vote, we might as well take interest in politics. Or at least enough to know what each party stands for.
-every Belgian has a passport (unless I'm mistaken, the best ID you have is a driver's license), and that's really all you need to vote.
-during election days, children see their parents vote and get taught into the why.
-since everyone needs to vote, election boots are put up in every area
Result: none of that bullshit like people having to spend hours to vote (Christ...the most time I ever spent voting is 30 minutes, and that was because I went during rush hour. It's also including door-to-door travel time), having trouble getting registered or votes being ignored for other reasons.
@alexg1989 : okay...I read your posts, and as you can imagine, I disagree with most. However, I would suggest that you make your own thread if you want to discuss things, as you left talking about elections more than a few posts ago. Go on...try it. It's free.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,094
- Country
That's quite interesting! Thanks for writing that up. Voting is obligatory here too, and I'm not sure if it is best - should someone who comes in and votes the way the campaigners outside tell them to, or the TV ads tell them to, get as much of a vote as those who do loads of research to make an informed decision about what is best? There's probably a good argument to make it obligatory but I don't know what it is - maybe that the election should count the voices of every citizen, instead of skipping people that can't get time off work etc.Sorry, but I thought that this would speak for itself. I'm from Belgium, I really don't think our system is perfect by any means. However, I dare say that when compared to the USA, we have a de facto better system when it comes to democracy in terms of "ruling by the people". Let's see...
1) we have a good handfull of competing parties. And too many posts, but I'll spare you a boring difference between regional and federal government AND between Flanders and Wallonie. But each election, we get to vote for the following parties:
-PVDA: this party is what passes for extreme left, and most likely described as "communist scum" in the USA. To be honest...they're not that far off.
-Groen: a mainly left-side party with strong emphasis on the environment
-SP-A: classic left. mainly concerned with affordable jobs. Basically the union's choice. Bernie Sanders would probably fit either in here best.
-CD&V: the most centered party. Concerned with whatever is politically hot (and therefore not really standing for anything in particular).
-VLD: the classic employer's party. Loves the free market, but is about center-right
-NV-A: initially elected because they want to split up Flanders, but since they're in government they just have some right-ish agenda.
-Vlaams Blok: basically the party for racists. Ironically enough: even though often seen as 'extreme right' on the streets (which is also why other parties downright refuse to form a government with them), even they don't dream about following Trump's stances.
-a few blanks. Each election, you've got a few jokers. Small parties that are either throwaway votes (I'll get to that) or just focus on one particular issue
...and that's just on Flanders's side. Wallon has differently named and lead parties, but who are sort of similar.
Result: none of that "I have to vote for the least evil" bullshit. If you don't like a party's stance, you just pick another one. Not many people go the whole spectrum, but depending how they fare they might rise or lower in the polls.
Note: we only get to vote for one party, and from one person within that party (no, this shouldn't be the party leader...you can vote for anyone within). I'd much prefer it if we could rank these parties in terms of importance rather than just voting for one, but alas. Oh, and even better: I want to be able to fucking vote for Wallon parties, damnit!
2) once the votes are counted, the percentage of votes each party had determines the amount of governmental power might have. At this point, the parties start talking to each other, because a representing government needs to consist of the majority of what the people voted for. This can be a problem if all the parties have roughly the same amount of votes (and different ideologies), but that's where compromising comes in.
Result: none of that "I represent 51% of the voters, so screw the rest of the population" bullshit. Let alone that "I have less votes but in better positions, so I call ALL the shots".
3) influence is a tricky one, but here too, the different parties, alliances and opposition help smooth things out. In both our countries, it's almost unheard that someone within the party critiques someone from their own party. But there can be plenty of critique from the opposition, or - much harder to deal with - another party in the government. As it stands, NV-A and CD&V are on some sort of cold war against each other. But because they're both in the government and they both can make the government fall if they leave, they are forced to settle their differences and come to agreements.
The influence of lobbying groups...I've got to admit I don't know much about that. I'm inclined to believe that they have a harder time because groups need to bribe multiple parties AND keep it secret for others, but again: I'm not too familiar with that on our end. One study revealing that the Belgian government is among the least corrupt in the world is obviously nice, but hardly overwhelming evidence.
On media, we're different in that we still do have state television. These are more or less obligated to give each party airtime depending on their popularity and (within reasons) to report rather unbiassed. When there's upcoming elections (like what'll happen in about three months from now), there is a "no commercial period" forced on the parties. While that's obviously hard to truly maintain (a couple weeks ago, I've heard of a mini-scandal: two NV-A politicians walked around in campaign T-shirts), it's nowhere NEAR the circus that it is in America.
Result: a more civil climate among politicians. It's still nowhere near as it should be (politicians still sort-of try to shift credit to them and blame to others), but it's easy to see which ones we prefer.
...and one I want to bring up while it's not mentioned in my opening post:
4) make voting obligated. This is rather controversial, and even in our country not many think our obligation to vote is a good thing. To those, I'd like to point out American situations that reflect the other side of a right to vote as opposed to a duty.
-since we have to vote, we might as well take interest in politics. Or at least enough to know what each party stands for.
-every Belgian has a passport (unless I'm mistaken, the best ID you have is a driver's license), and that's really all you need to vote.
-during election days, children see their parents vote and get taught into the why.
-since everyone needs to vote, election boots are put up in every area
Result: none of that bullshit like people having to spend hours to vote (Christ...the most time I ever spent voting is 30 minutes, and that was because I went during rush hour. It's also including door-to-door travel time), having trouble getting registered or votes being ignored for other reasons.
@alexg1989 : okay...I read your posts, and as you can imagine, I disagree with most. However, I would suggest that you make your own thread if you want to discuss things, as you left talking about elections more than a few posts ago. Go on...try it. It's free.
To be honest, from what I'm seeing, the real problem seems to be with the voter *hint hint*
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
@ HiradeGirl:
Any TV with your PC connected with Citra and any smartphone to use as a screen using a free play store app.+1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
NinStar:
quite ironic that brawlhalla has a far superior netcode compared to smash bros ultimate while offering free online play with crossplay support -
