Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

-TSS-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,048

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by -TSS-

  1. -TSS-
    As the FPTP-system produces very capricious results why don't countries which use the system at least introduce a run-off in those constituencies where no-one has received more than 50% of the votes? Namely, one can get elected by a very small share of the vote as long as he/she receives more votes than anyone else.
  2. -TSS-
    I'm optimistic about the future. I'm sure that the USA will follow the general trend of the western world where "no religion" is the fastest growing answer to questions about one's religious adherence.
  3. -TSS-
    Is it the provinces in Canada which draw the boundaries of constituencies, or ridings as you call them, even for federal elections or is there some federal boundary-commisiion? How often are those boundaries reviewed to correspond to the changes of population?
  4. -TSS-
    I don't think anyone wants to be President or Prime Minister because of money. If you want money then start a successful business.
  5. -TSS-
    There are also different forms of proportional systems. Here in Finland we have a system of open lists, which means we have multi-member constituencies but we still vote for individual candidates on those lists. If there are 10 seats available in a constituency and a party receives 30% of the votes it gets three seats in that constituency and the three are those candidates who have received most votes on the list. In many other European countries there is no such system. People just vote for the party-lists and have no influence on the order of the people getting elected. People can only influence how many MP's any party receives, not which people become MP's. Needless to say, the party-leader's and his best friends' names are usually at the top of the list.
  6. -TSS-
    The FPTP-system works well as long as the combined share of votes of the two largest parties is at least 95%. If there is a strong third party not mention even more parties then the system really becomes capricious. In Germany and NZ there is a system of mixing proportional representation and single-member constituencies. A voter has two votes, one for a local candidate and another for the party-list. The party-list vote is more important as it determines the share of seats between parties in parliament. The problem with this system is that those who have been elected from the single-member constituencies are considered as to having a heavier mandate than those from the party-lists. Who are the people who are elected from the party-lists? Mostly people who were unsuccesful in the single-member constituency votes. So, if you are rejected by your constituents, you still sneak in through a party-list. A year ago there was a referendum in NZ on whether to return to full FPTP or to retain the MMP-system. Despite people having expressed dissatisfaction at the working of the MMP_system, a large majority of people preferred to keep it. You do realise that if Canada moves to some kind of proportional representation it will mean coalition governments? If you don't have a tradition of coalition-governments then it may appear as very alien to most voters as it involves such a lot of horse-trading and compromises.
  7. -TSS-
    Does his staff work for so little as well? I doubt it very much.
  8. -TSS-
    The threshold is usually nationwide. Diferent countries have different rules but as some countries have strong regional parties which don't reach above the national threshold there are exceptions to the rule.
  9. -TSS-
    One problem with introducing a system of proportional representation in elections is to avoid parliament becoming too fragmented with tiny parties. That's why most European countries have introduced a threshold above which a party contesting an election must rise in order to gain representation. That threshold is most often at 5% but also 2-4% thresholds are being used, for example in Sweden and Denmark. Of course, such thresholds are completely arbitrary but if there were no thresholds there could be numerous tiny parties and forming a workable government-coalition would be almost impossible. Israel is a good example of this problem. Ultra religious parties with only a fraction of support but being in a position to hold the balance of power between blocks.
  10. -TSS-
    The FPTP-system creates an impression that from time to time the electorate boots out an unpopular government. Small swings in a handful of marginal constituencies can overturn the share of the seats in parliament. However, the reality is that if you live in an area where one party has a safe seat then motivation for turning out to vote may be low especially if you happen to support a candidate from another party than the one which has a safe seat in your area, no matter how popular your party of choice is elsewhere in the country. Having said that, my understanding is that in Canada there are far fewer rock solid safe seats for one party than in Britain which also uses the FPTP-system.
  11. -TSS-
    That's what religious people always say about any catastrophe.
  12. -TSS-
    You're right but isn't freedom from religions also protected by constitutions? Not that non-religious people would be that uncertain about their views that they would need such protection.
  13. -TSS-
    Deliberately offending someone is very bad manners but why is offending someone's religious views considered somehow more serious an offence than offending someone by making fun of how he or she looks like? While people's religious sensitivities are under such protection those same religious people can offend the views of non-religious people with impunity.
  14. -TSS-
    But how exactly do protestant churches in North-America finance themselves? Tax-breaks is not an adequate explanation. Money still must come from somewhere.
  15. -TSS-
    The Republicans are in a difficult situation as they must think hard what to do to change in order to become electable again in the presidential elections. Like it or not but the USA is fast becoming a more and more secular country, so religious nutjobbery no longer appeals to the electorate at large.
  16. -TSS-
    Didn't George W get a fairly good share of the votes from the Latinos in Texas both in 2000 and 2004 as when he was governor of Texas he made the effort heed the requests of the Latino-voters in that state? He even speaks some Spanish, doesn't he?
  17. -TSS-
    When I was listening to the election-night analysis I found it very interesting that they pointed out that no incumbent President has been re-elected at a time of such a high uemployment as the national average is 7.9%. However, that is a prime example of if you look into statistics hard enough you will always find some new record which has been broken. The Republicans are becoming more and more a party of ageing white men living in rural areas. Even though the proportion of ageing people is temporarily on a rise there is no future for a party which is considered by the larger electorate as some sort of grand-daddies' party.
  18. -TSS-
    Fortunately, it is the people who vote, not the acres.
  19. -TSS-
    The current electoral system whereby the winner takes all of the electoral college votes emphasizes the federal nature of the US political system and that is just fine even though there can be an absurd result that the candidate with fewer votes gets elected. However, as the every state is given two votes on top of their proportional share of the population, that gives smaller states more weight than their population merits them. That favours the Republicans. On the other hand, as the population is moving more and more into big cities and there is ceaseless immigration, that favours the Democrats.
  20. -TSS-
    About 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Even though the majority of the socioeconomic status of those people makes it more conceivable for them to vote for the Democrats but not that large a majority.
  21. -TSS-
    When Obama passed the 270-mark he was trailing Romney in the popular vote. Fortunately, Obama passed Romney in the popular vote too. Otherwise it would have been a very lame mandate to govern the country.
  22. -TSS-
    I think that if Romney loses tonight then Ryan will be the republican nominee in four years time. Or perhaps even if Romney wins tonight Ryan could still be the republican nominee in four years time as it is easy to imagine Romney as a voluntary one-term President. Who was the last voluntary one-term President? LBJ in some way but not even him in the strict sense but he decided not to run for another term in 1968 even though he could have.
  23. -TSS-
    The secret services must be hoping for Obama to win just to avoid protecting five former presidents besides an incumbent one.
  24. -TSS-
    Romney 270-275 electoral college votes.
  25. -TSS-
    If Romney gets elected he can not either break his election-promises or cause serious economic damage to the country. Hopefully the former.
×
×
  • Create New...