Political sectarianism in America

[broncofan]

The House voted to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee roles. The ideas she has promoted are about the most deranged and racist and dangerously delusional ideas a person can promote. I read today she reposted a video that was basically great replacement theory warning about "miscegenation".

I read the vote to remove her was a bipartisan vote. Is that what they say if there's one Republican in the House with an ounce of decency? 11 Republicans in total voted to remove her from her committee roles. I never thought I'd see so many politicians behave as if they have no moral core at all.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status...92219094491136

It goes on and on. Violent racist thinks Muslims can't serve in the House of Representatives, but is supported by most Republican Congressmen.

[Stavros]

The House voted to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee roles. The ideas she has promoted are about the most deranged and racist and dangerously delusional ideas a person can promote. I read today she reposted a video that was basically great replacement theory warning about "miscegenation".

I read the vote to remove her was a bipartisan vote. Is that what they say if there's one Republican in the House with an ounce of decency? 11 Republicans in total voted to remove her from her committee roles. I never thought I'd see so many politicians behave as if they have no moral core at all.

According to press reports, she received a 'standing ovation' when she spoke, would be interesting to know what she said. As I have argued before, unless you create the kind of party system we have in Europe, with formal membership requirements, extremists like Taylor-Greene (and Trump too) would never be selected let alone elected to represent the party. The best people like her could hope for is to be a local politician somewhere if independents or minority parties ever get their people into office. She attracts too much attention because of her views, others, like Paul Gosar have been on the fringes for years, he even invited 'Tommy Robinson' to visit the US. In the end you have the system of political representation that you are reluctant to reform.

[sukumvit boy]

According to press reports, she received a 'standing ovation' when she spoke, would be interesting to know what she said. As I have argued before, unless you create the kind of party system we have in Europe, with formal membership requirements, extremists like Taylor-Greene (and Trump too) would never be selected let alone elected to represent the party. The best people like her could hope for is to be a local politician somewhere if independents or minority parties ever get their people into office. She attracts too much attention because of her views, others, like Paul Gosar have been on the fringes for years, he even invited 'Tommy Robinson' to visit the US. In the end you have the system of political representation that you are reluctant to reform.

Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.

[Stavros]

Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.

I can see the logic of the Electoral College, and the original intention of fairness, and I don't suppose the people who designed it ever expected that it would produce the opposite outcome it was intended to. That said, what, if anything, would you change?

[sukumvit boy]

I can see the logic of the Electoral College, and the original intention of fairness, and I don't suppose the people who designed it ever expected that it would produce the opposite outcome it was intended to. That said, what, if anything, would you change?

I don't think the 'zero sum game' nature of the two party system is serving us well . I think we need to provide a way for a more diverse mix of political philosophies to get in the act of daily government and legislation. For example I love many of Bernie Sander's 'Socialist' ideas such as healthcare for all and the need to vigorously address the kind of rampant 'one percenter' income inequality we are struggling with ,and was sad to see him have to drop out.

[filghy2]

Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.

I don't think the 'zero sum game' nature of the two party system is serving us well . I think we need to provide a way for a more diverse mix of political philosophies to get in the act of daily government and legislation.

When you say you favour keeping the electoral college do you mean the method for determining how many votes states get, the 'winner take all' system that operates in virtually every state or the indirect method of election? The three elements are separable.

If you want to weaken the duopoly I think you should favour shifting away from the 'winner take all' system to one where every vote counts equally and no voters can be disregarded. That would force candidates to appeal to as wide a cross-section of voters as possible, rather than appealing primarily to their own partisans. There are a number of options that could acihieve this more effectively, including election of the president by popular vote, ranked preferential voting and/or proportional representation.

[Stavros]

I am not sure how the US can reform given the power that States have to design their electoral system, and resist any attempts by the Federal Govt to change that. On the one hand, one cannot see either main party giving up their hold on office, on the other hand, if the Republicans split, one or both factions might see some form of PR a means of remaining in office, if the split vote keeps them out of power. But the more urgent task is to tacke gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The problem with PR is that it may appear to be a fair reflection of the way people vote, and thus return a Parliament/Congress that more closely represents the people, but it doesn't mean it results in fair government. If no party wins enough to rule on its own, a Coalition is required, and more often than not, is the consequence of PR. This in turn tends to make either for inefficient government or through policy failures can ruin the fate of a party in the Coalition -the Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 but were punished in 2015 and relegated to being a party of minimal importance. Although the Democratic Unionist Party were not in Coalition with Theresa May's Government after the 2017 election, they held the balance of power in the Commons, but used it to ruin May's attempt to pass the EU Withdrawal Bill. Not only were they then punished in 2019 by becoming an irrelevance in a Conservative Majority Commons, their chershed links with the UK are now under threat to the extent that they face the prospect of losing a popular referendum in Northern Ireland on unity with the South, as the local economy is hammered by the Brexit reaities that Boris Johnson doesn't care a fig for Northern Ireland and may try to change or amend the Northern Ireland Protocol but cannot change the fact that the UK is not in the EU, but NI is half-in, half-out.

Again, if you look at Israel, or West Germany when the Free Democrats held the balance of power, PR offers parties with minimal public support key roles in Government and with policies that the majority may not want. Israel is a good example of how parties with barely 3 or 4% of the vote can determine the fate of the country -so that in these cases, PR as a voting mechanism may fairly represent the voters at large, but cannot guarantee that Government represents the country more fairly, or is even efficient. One can look at the endless negotiations that follow elections to form a government in Belgium and Italy to realise PR more often than not results in an incoherent mess.

[filghy2]

If PR was to be tried in the US system the logical place would be in the Senate, as is the case in Australia. I think the system generally works quite well in Australia. The governing party cannot just ram its legislation through the Senate, but has to negotiate with the minor parties, which results in improvements more often than not. You might call that inefficiency, but efficiency isn't everything - dictatorships are very efficient.

If the starting point is a system characterised by gridlock (because the same party rarely controls all three arms of govt) it's not a very convincing objection to say that PR would cause gridlock.

[sukumvit boy]

When you say you favour keeping the electoral college do you mean the method for determining how many votes states get, the 'winner take all' system that operates in virtually every state or the indirect method of election? The three elements are separable.

If you want to weaken the duopoly I think you should favour shifting away from the 'winner take all' system to one where every vote counts equally and no voters can be disregarded. That would force candidates to appeal to as wide a cross-section of voters as possible, rather than appealing primarily to their own partisans. There are a number of options that could acihieve this more effectively, including election of the president by popular vote, ranked preferential voting and/or proportional representation.

Yes, but without the Electoral Collage the combined vote of the east and west coasts alone would win. Good video on Amazon Prime and I'm sure many other sources...