Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
One moderate, competent, good faith governance party and one opposed to the idea that Federal government should exist
At that, we're less volatile than parliamentary systems, where everything can change overnight.
optimizing electoral systems is hard. but fptp & electoral college without ranked choice voting is as suboptimal as you can get indeed
It’s why the filibuster is so critical, yet your party has every intention of tossing it into the dustbin of history
No worry. When a Republican takes charge with a bare majority they will ram through all those goodies you can’t stand
It works more that way than most parliamentary systems. It takes three cycles to change the Senate and a generation to change SCOTUS.
This is why the filibuster is good, why Chevron deference was bad, and why both parties should be more skeptical of executive power.
Relative to what though? For instance, look at the most recent results in the UK.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a better, more representative system. But I tend to think the flaws of our own are overstated.
I thought I was done with politics for good. But I've seen what the Democrats have done to our country. I'm running for US Senate in the most hotly contested race in the country. Will you chip in now?
0:01
Help me beat Hillary Clinton's heir apparent >>>
You’re right but it should be. But 2022 was a big shift in both vote count and in governance, as it should be.
You say that, but want a larger federal government, more democracy, and want fillibuster reform to lower the bar for sweeping legislation. Everything you want will put us under the whims of the 51%, but you're cool with that as long as it aligns with your policy goals.
Need to be able to hold issue-specific national referendums. No pathway to that, and we'll never pass another constitutional amendment because gridlock.
I know. I thought that 24 years ago, when Bush "won" by a hair that he would govern as a centrist. Nope
This point/perspective was missed in the conversation with on how "optimal" the even divide in elections was. My view is that part of the convo saw the forest for the trees
Thus my favorite fillibuster replacement, an act of congress has an expiration date based on the % of votes it gets. 50%+1 vote, expires next election. Get 60%, can go 10 years, 66%, 25 or something like that. Details are flexible.
If I could replace our system unilaterally, I'd replace it with the German constitution, adding our First Amendment, the absence of which may be necessary in Germany, but is generally bad
Absolutely representative of expressed vote, almost-always creating a centrist coalition
All I know is that next week someone will have won with an overwhelming mandate and will have run a brilliant campaign masterminded by next-level genius strategists (just ask them). Can't wait to find out which team it is.
My Senate race is the most important in the country right now - and that's not an overstatement. I'm neck-and-neck in the polls with my liberal opponent. Will you help me defeat Hillary Clinton's heir apparent?
I agree. It’s crazy that a close win by one party can dramatically shift the policies that get implemented.
States just need to move from winner-take-all to the Nebraska/Maine model.
That's the effect of parties--something the system was not designed to tolerate.
It’s disappointing to me that neither party wants to be a 60% party anymore
Pendulum swings. Not good for engendering trust in international treaties either.
Under a system of Legislative Supremacy, the original intent established in the Constitution, small shifts in Congressional representation shifts governance outcomes in small ways.
Unfortunately, BOTH sides have granted the Executive Branch more power than is Constitutional.
Speaker Johnson said illegal immigrants allowed in by President Biden’s border chaos are showing up at government offices to sign up for benefits and services, and when they do they’re being prodded to sign up to vote.
Rate proposed Community Notes
I think another thing you want is for the voting system to reflect people's decision process. Local representation only works if people actually choose based on the local candidates and not the broader parties.
It could be worse. We could be the UK, where Labour scored absolute power for 5 years by winning 34%.
What we want isn’t relevant. It should be, but we rely on what the “founders” wanted.
I don’t think anyone can argue that our form is government promotes too much change, sorry! We have two chambers which automatically work as a check to each other, as well as presidency.
To a degree, Britain's system works this way too. First past the post electoral races. Want to ask France and Holland, even Italy and Spain.
How about popular vote prez, 60pct congressional action major policy change, 50pct small change, term limit courts
It sort of works that way in Congress. Trump having to rely on Collins & Murkowski to pass bills means he probably can't pass anything too radical. Unfortunately, the President has a lot of executive power aside from signing bills.
Are you tired of unreliable rewards and unpredictable results in marketing initiatives?
Our goal is to change that and deliver you better solutions. 
Join us in our mission to revolutionize marketing with a token-based system that delivers results you can count on!
Learn
Join us in our mission to revolutionize marketing with a token-based system that delivers results you can count on!
LearnShow more
Our system is full of veto points and I don’t think this is true at all.
My main complaint with national/federal government is methodological. They just implement large changes across the board without trying them in smaller locations with treatment and control groups to make sure they actually work first.
What happens if they hurt more than help??
That’s why this idea I had today is awesome
Quote
Toad Town Nationalist
@King_Raven_Raph
The presidents powers should be proportional to the amount of electoral votes they get. With 270 you can veto bills. With 300 you can dissolve the legislature. With 500 you’re dictator for life.
Is there any electoral system like that other than North Korea? You don't have to worry about big policy changes there. But any system where the populace can throw the bums out has the feature you decry.
One of the many terrible things George Bush did was act like he had won a huge mandate based on a tied election decided by a Republican court. Big tax cuts, incredibly aggressive foreign policy, two wars both fought badly. At best, he tied Gore. Should have governed as such
Quote
Yglesias Takes Archive
@mattpyglesias
Did you know I had a public Flickr account? It's still there if you want to check it out. I loved posting creepshots!
Is there any system that works that way? Seems that Parliamentary systems are even worse in that regard. A one vote majority means you get to do whatever you want, especially if MPs are required to vote with the party.
There are no do-overs— if we lose Maryland, we’ll lose control of the Senate.
Will you chip in $10 or more to give us the momentum we need to defeat Larry Hogan and defend our Senate majority?
Nah. That leads to euro-style consensus-ism.
Better to give a decisive mandate and judge the results next election .
Well having only 1 executive is one problem.
3 Pres. Overlapping 6 yr terms. 2/3 for exec action.
Popular Pres - national election ranked choice voting
Parliamentary Pres - chosen* by House
Federal Pres - chosen* by governors
*papal enclave rules
No VPs, snap election
Show more
That's exactly how our system is supposed to work. It was designed that way on purpose. Funny, I thought you were a reader.
One team puts some dumb policy in place then when the other team takes power they get rid of the old policy and put their own dumb policy in place then when the next team takes power they do the same thing and so on and so on
That is absolutely how our governance works in the long run. Just not for electing the president. The onus is on them to build coalitions. And you said "governance outcomes" so I'm just taking you at your word.
Nothing makes me crazier than hearing either party talk about a “mandate” after winning 53-47
Neither side wants this from a 1% victory.
However, the Lawfare model of politics needs to be discredited and gutted.
No more “for my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
Life is a sum-zero game buddy.
It’s the literal premise of abortion.
Makes sense our elections are the same way.
It kind of is. Our system was carefully designed to make it hard to make significant change without a massive consensus among different parts of society.
That's a good thing.
Yeah, a two party system sort of blows.
It would be a much healthier dynamic with a viable third party.
There's an argument that such a design principle leads to nothing getting done and everything hinging on single marginal voter issues. If winning party can more easily implement their agenda, voters can more directly see "what they bought" and adjust voting behavior accordingly.
Given all the checks and balances in the United States system of national government (not to mention separation of powers) isn’t small shifts in governance outcomes EXACTLY what happens in real life.
The House should have about 2 dozen libertarians, a handful of greens, and maybe even a 
socialist to better represent the full spectrum of US political opinion.
socialist to better represent the full spectrum of US political opinion.
If you’re concerned about election fraud and want your representatives to investigate and prosecute anyone who seeks to undermine our elections, please click below to join other concerned citizens by completing our National Survey on Election Fraud now! >>
Rate proposed Community Notes
So you're very pro filibuster, pro Senate, pro major questions doctrine right? Right?
If the constitution were obeyed it would be. We need more federalism and a less powerful president so that the election of one person wasn’t such a big deal, particularly when both major parties repeatedly
insist on nominating idiots.
I think it's roughly what we DO get. You seen Trump adopting traditionally Left positions & you see Harris copying some of Trump's positions. Harris is backing away from the crazy Left. There are differences ofc, but they are amplified through focus rather than objective reality.
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Discover more
Sourced from across X
Compare this media turnout to the media turnout for a bipartisan bill introduction, and you'll get a good sense of one of the underlying problems with our politics today.
Quote
Jayne Zirkle
@JayneZirkle
HAPPENING NOW: Steve Bannon Addresses Press After Prison Release
"We have to stop getting so offended." - JD Vance, 24 hours ago
Quote
JD Vance
@JDVance
Replying to @JDVance @JonLemire and 2 others
Will the networks that obsessively covered a joke from a comedian at a Trump rally cover the fact that the Kamala Harris campaign is insulting half of the country? Will they even report honestly on this disgusting behavior from our present leadership?
It's underrated how much Trumpism has made the Dem/GOP Wonk Gap permanent.
In 2012 the gap was tolerable. Smart center-right wonks existed.
Now 90% of the young GOP pipeline is groyper-level podcasts. It's going to be *decades* before there are good right wing wonks again.