republicans took the senate, 54-46 after runoff +Rs take md., ill., mass. govs

[comr4de]

No lol thats not what gerryMANDERING is at all

[Ad Bot]

[Qwepir]

obviosly thats why he called it jerrymongering

[SWAT One]

I think that the districts should be decided by three things:  Documentation from hospitals (just births and deaths.  This information is not public.), immigration services, and by inputting data like this into a computer which automatically draws boundary lines.  This computer is not controlled, and essentially works like the internet—it has no sole operator.


That being said, the party system in America is forgeted up and we need to critically brown townyze European governments.  For instance, Germany's single (or few)-issue parties would help in local areas so small demographics that would be within a larger party are pleased with that answer, since they can both get what they want.  I think it would be fair to say that large portions of people who identify themselves as democrat or republican don't actually believe all the policies that their party endorses.  With single-issue parties, ideas could get represented, and as ultimax warned, these could still be funded.  Hell, the funding may even be better for these because those that don't fully align with a larger party's policies wouldn't have the second-thoughts on supporting it.

[Nickelob Ultra]

No lol thats not what gerryMANDERING is at all

obviosly thats why he called it jerrymongering

dammit his name's larry not gerry or jerry



For real, though, I'm really surprised Maryland turned red last night.  I was watching it closely because I wanted Larry "Hulk" Hogan to win mostly because he wants to push lower tax rates (tax rates are UNREAL in Maryland, it's making people leave) and MD is at risk of losing businesses due to overregulation.  Looking forward to see what he'll be doing and that he's hopefully not too extremist-conservative.

D.C. also passed legalization of weed but it's difficult to say how well that'll work considering it's still illegal under federal law and D.C. is like the heartland of all federal government.

I'm happy that the House and Senate are on the same page now at least too.  A lot of Republicans in Congress are loving nutjobs though so that's no fun but at least there isn't that much of a gridlock.  I guarantee the next president will probably be Republican.

[Frankie²]

I guarantee the next president will probably be Republican.

so you guarantee you might be right?

[Qwepir]

dammit his name's larry not gerry or jerry

you're not fred, jerry, you're larry

[TristanLuigi]

how do you propose we get rid of it? parties are non-governmental organizations that provide funding for politicians. so will politicians no longer be funded by others now? do you propose that politicians self fund? that'll only create two things:
1. corporations will sponsor politicians to get their views represented. many of these politicians will be focused on a few issues
2. people will sponsor themselves. only those with enough capital (aka rich people) will get enough exposure to make it into office.

this is a dumb idea. parties are a necessary evil. the best we can do would be to get rid of the FPTP system in favor of something that would allow people to vote for multiple parties at once with different weights or something. (e.g first vote for green, second vote for libert, third vote for dem) that + campaign finance reform + removal of percentage-based ballot requirements + some other stuff could empower third parties and allow the politically informed to have a better shot of replacing groups that no longer represent the will of the people.

also i'm surprised to see so many libertarians. the whole idea sounds handicapped to me. (not to say dems/republicans are much better)

RIP Illinois

Obviously the party system is a necessary evil, but for forget's sake there needs to be more than 2 major parties - having only 2 basically forces people to elect someone who doesn't agree with them. For instance, on matters of tax, budget, welfare, etc I'm republican while on matters like marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, etc I'm libertarian. Unfortunately, the 2-party system simply doesn't allow you to express what you want for the country (that is, let people do stuff they want as long as they don't endanger people, but don't throw money at them.) Personally, I like the STV system for senates and AV for office.*

*AV and STV are almost the same thing and I don't really see much of a difference other than that STV works for electing multiple people.

[ultimamax]

Oh, and make it a requirement where people can't lie about themselves or others when they are running. This is a major problem, especially in the news. People need to be informed about who they are voting for, not fed lies and "fact-like opinions".

This is a bad idea. There's no way to effectively do this. The better option would be this: a directly voted impeachment process, but only those who voted for the person in office can participate in this process. (so opposing parties don't conspire to get opponents impeached) This would allow voters who are unsatisfied with how their representative has acted to have him impeached. Politicians would need to stick to their word or risk impeachment.

[ultimamax]

yah, the problem as I see it is that people get caught up in republican or democrat "argument," so to speak. If someone doesn't have the ideas of one of those two leading parties, and lets say they join the Green party; they may have some really great ideas for the country, but because they didn't share ideas with with the elephant or donkey, there's very little chance they'll get elected. Last time we had a non democratic/republican president was in 1853; that was before the republican party even existed.

If we had significantly more parties that had a wider variety of ideas, I think it'd be better.

Yeah. I am definitely open to functionally Republican government. (although I prefer market regulation & social liberalism) There are many people like me who are moderate in this area, but are stubbornly on one side. It's not conducive to change.

I think that the districts should be decided by three things:  Documentation from hospitals (just births and deaths.  This information is not public.), immigration services, and by inputting data like this into a computer which automatically draws boundary lines.  This computer is not controlled, and essentially works like the internet—it has no sole operator.


That being said, the party system in America is forgeted up and we need to critically brown townyze European governments.  For instance, Germany's single (or few)-issue parties would help in local areas so small demographics that would be within a larger party are pleased with that answer, since they can both get what they want.  I think it would be fair to say that large portions of people who identify themselves as democrat or republican don't actually believe all the policies that their party endorses.  With single-issue parties, ideas could get represented, and as ultimax warned, these could still be funded.  Hell, the funding may even be better for these because those that don't fully align with a larger party's policies wouldn't have the second-thoughts on supporting it.

The issue with one-issue parties is that if you use FPTP then you can only vote for one. More than one issue is important at a time. That's why I like the European system, there are so many parties that there's bound to be one that aligns to your views much better than dem/republican might.

Up in Canada we have 3 major ones and 2 low profile parties and it helps prevent the stupid kindergarten playground government policies of "NO WE WONT LET YOU" that the states seems to be rolling all the time, since it usually turns out the parties may agree with each other on some bills that may be good for us.

This is the kind of stuff we need. The problem is the 2 american parties have made sure to crush the possibility of the rising of a third party.

[ultimamax]

Obviously the party system is a necessary evil, but for forget's sake there needs to be more than 2 major parties - having only 2 basically forces people to elect someone who doesn't agree with them. For instance, on matters of tax, budget, welfare, etc I'm republican while on matters like marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, etc I'm libertarian. Unfortunately, the 2-party system simply doesn't allow you to express what you want for the country (that is, let people do stuff they want as long as they don't endanger people, but don't throw money at them.) Personally, I like the STV system for senates and AV for office.*

*AV and STV are almost the same thing and I don't really see much of a difference other than that STV works for electing multiple people.

FPTP is definitely one of the biggest problems for third parties. It'll be hard to change because it benefits everyone who has the power to change it. It's a Catch 22.

[Aide33]

both parties are equally handicapped I find

[otto-san]

throughout the better half of US history we've had two major parties and the occasional breakaway party that's relevant for a decade or so and then fades back into the major ones. we even have this happening now with the tea party which as far as i'm concerned is filled with the most radical skateboard and sunglasses wielding republicans around

wtf is wrong with us and why can't we get out of these civil war-era politics and get stuff done blah blah blah parties are dumb i don't like them poop in my butt

i definitely don't agree with the idea that there's a 'good party' and a 'bad party' though because that's extremely subjective. republicans are easy to pick on since they're typically very conservative and if you're not conservative you might go "wow wtf is up with you get over yourself" but obnoxious people are obnoxious cus they're obnoxious, not cus they're part of some party

[Aide33]

wtf is wrong with us and why can't we get out of these civil war-era politics and get stuff done blah blah blah parties are dumb i don't like them poop in my butt

Can I frame this

[otto-san]

Can I frame this

ya sure stick it on a wall and call me roger rabbit

[TristanLuigi]

We should just create our own party (Revolution Party?) focused on changing the voting system and party system!