Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
An element of FPTP would still allow voters to choose an independent candidate if they wanted, or vote for a candidate that they like personally, but who happens to be in a different party. Like a Democrat voting for a moderate-leaning Republican over a more radical Democrat. Unless I'm totally missing the way MMP works. That's where you vote for a district candidate and a party, right? So a state that normally gets 10 Representatives would instead have 5 larger districts, and the other 5 would be used to apportion the statewide party support, correct?
edited 24th Jan '13 2:57:02 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.It depends on the proportional of seats you allocate to each type, but generally its 50:50, ie 5 FPTP, and 5 PR.
What you want is multiple candidate selection, which occurs in STV. STV is an ordinal (ie ranked) system where you can rank your chosen candidate(s). If there are four seats in a constituency, you can rank up to four candidates 1 - 4.
(In a four-seat constituency, it is effectively four rounds of vote counting to select each seat)
I don't like it. *angry old man face* Just use the current majority to hammer it through.
Looking through the comments on that one is actually infomitive this time.
I like the fact that it means more bills will pass the Senate. I also agree with those commentors that I would prefer forcing the Senators to be present in order to filibuster.
I'm also not particularly happy about the minority party being able to add 2 admendments to any bill. But before I say any more about that, I want to see how well this bill works and what sorts of admendments will be added to various bills.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!The Republicans are saying that they're not able to amend bills because of the majority leader (“filling the tree," according to the link within the article). That's probably why that was added.
I wonder if this reform will have a long-lasting impact and permanently change the meaning of filibuster.
Oh, I understand "why" (or at least the reason given), but the way the article is worded there are a number of things thatcould happen and I want to take a "wait and see" approach.
For example, an amendment that the Republicans know that the Dems would not vote for would halt a bill even more than a filibuster. And who decides the amendments that are added?
edited 24th Jan '13 4:50:58 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduces stringent assault weapons ban
This strikes me as a bad political move
Governor Jindal: GOP is a ‘populist party’
Senator Manchin (D-WV) says he's working with NRA on universal background check bill
Wasn't that the 1980s?
edited 24th Jan '13 6:04:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016edited 24th Jan '13 6:14:44 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
![]()
Feinstein's bill has already been argued as pretty much counterproductive, since she's literally stated that she's targeting manufacturers and the law-abiding public and not criminals. Patrick Leahy introduced his bill that targets firearms trafficking
which I think will have far more support from both sides.
![]()
Probably. If they'd cite specific things and say why they need to be gutted I'd be more in favor of it.
I have an idea for a simpler code though.
- Families making over 250k receive no deductions and are taxed at the following brackets:
- 250k-40%
- 500k-50%
- 750k-60%
- 1 million-70%
- 5 million and up-75%.
- Capital gains are subject to these same brackets.
- Corporations in the top bracket pay a 50% tax rate with deductions capable of amounting to no more than 10%.
If any of that is stupid then please tell me why. I'm not an expert on tax policy by any stretch of the imagination.
Okay, what is the difference between progressive and regressive tax systems? I get that one applies the same rate while another changes rates based on income but I'm not sure if there's more to it than that.
edited 24th Jan '13 6:31:57 PM by Kostya

Well, constituencies used in Proportional Systems are incredibly hard to gerrymander if you have three or more members per district. You can't exactly split voter blocs if your voter blocs can easily vote for their chosen party no matter how you draw the boundaries.