America's retarded voting system is the reason I dont give a f*ck about our politics.

[Dresta]

yes you can just give up your citizenship

And why should anyone have to give up their right to return to their homeland? What if this leaves them without citizenship in any country? Unfortunately, many Americans are relinquishing their citizenship due to the despotic behaviour of its Federal government (it's policy of taxing foreign income is a complete disgrace), and it's really quite sad.

**** that James Madison retard.

The current voting system really looks nothing like that implemented by Madison. Madison himself was opposed to political parties and the Constitution doesn't provide for them.

[russwest0]

**** that James Madison retard.

You kidding? I'd kill to have Jame Madison as one of our nations leaders right now. He understood as much as anybody that no man is free from the temptations of combining greed with power, and that we constantly need to be questioning our methods of authority and how we go about distributing power.

Our current system is basically just the rich elite using money as a way of manipulating the stupid masses to get a 51% majority to put more of their corporate buddies into office. You know it, I know it, hell, we all do. But as it stands now I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[KevinNYC]

Madison himself was opposed to political parties and the Constitution doesn't provide for them.

He got over that pretty quick didn't he?

[KevinNYC]

You kidding? I'd kill to have Jame Madison as one of our nations leaders right now.

The issue of getting to 51% dates from his time does it not?

[Dresta]

He got over that pretty quick didn't he?

Not really. Not only was that barely a party in the modern sense, it was formed primarily as an allegiance against Hamilton who Jefferson (in particular) and Madison thought was scheming to turn the US system into a copy of the British one. In Federalist 10 he wrote:

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

Madison felt the emergence of parties to be inevitable, but that doesn't mean he approved of party divides and their consequences (in Federalist 50 he emphasises the need to guard against the 'evil' it creates).

The issue of getting to 51% dates from his time does it not?

No: again, it doesn't. Madison as much as anyone was aware of the dangers of letting the majority dictate policy. The idea of majority Democratic consent on the other hand dates all the way back (at least) to ancient Greece (where it quickly won a bad name for itself)

What the founders instituted wasn't really democracy at all but republicanism, and that has largely been forgotten due to the power the dogma of popular sovereignty seems to hold over most people. Nearly all the founders died despairing at the consequences brought by their experiment (Jefferson was aghast at the emergence and popularity of the likes of Jackson).

[KevinNYC]

Not really. Not only was that barely a party in the modern sense, it was formed primarily as an allegiance against Hamilton who Jefferson (in particular) and Madison thought was scheming to turn the US system into a copy of the British one. In Federalist 10 he wrote:



Madison felt the emergence of parties to be inevitable, but that doesn't mean he approved of party divides and their consequences (in Federalist 50 he emphasises the need to guard against the 'evil' it creates).


No: again, it doesn't. Madison as much as anyone was aware of the dangers of letting the majority dictate policy. The idea of majority Democratic consent on the other hand dates all the way back (at least) to ancient Greece (where it quickly won a bad name for itself)

What the founders instituted wasn't really democracy at all but republicanism, and that has largely been forgotten due to the power the dogma of popular sovereignty seems to hold over most people. Nearly all the founders died despairing at the consequences brought by their experiment (Jefferson was aghast at the emergence and popularity of the likes of Jackson).

Still got over it pretty quick though. You could still get elected to Congress with 51% of the vote in 1790's. Yes, not everyone got sufferage and Senators were elected by the state legislatures and the electoral college exists, but Russwest was complaining about 51% of the vote getting you elected. So he should take that up with Madison because there's nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

In fact lots of presidents became president with less than 51% of the popular vote including Lincoln, Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton and W. Bush.

[Im Still Ballin]

A rivalry is born. F*ck you old man.

[DeuceWallaces]

A rivalry is born. F*ck you old man.

A rivalry insinuates that you're able to fight back.

[GimmeThat]

If you're part of a large minority, then none of your views get represented in the slightest.

Say you and everyone else in your state votes on a senator. 49% vote for an independent candidate who seems level headed and perfect for the job but has little funding, and the other 51% vote for an old jackass who belongs to one of the major parties but never seems to lose office because of the campaign funding he's accumulated through businesses bribes and shit.

The 49% would get ZERO representation in political office and the dumb asses would continue to get represented by another shitty politician who doesn't speak for them in the slightest.

This is why America's voting system is retarded. And in presidential elections you can apply the same rules. Presidents basically only battle over like 4-5 states that are neutral and don't give a shit about the rest, and the majority vote for one of the two major guys, in fear that if they don't, then the other will rise to power, instead of voting for better candidates not considered a realistic option?

The solution for the presidential vote? Just have people number candidates in order of who they prefer and have a voting system weighed by that. That way people won't be scared shitless to vote for the candidates who aren't owned by corporations...

And for these mid term elections? Just overhaul the system to change it based on representation through voting. That way our congress is accurately represented by exactly what the people want...

Just my .02

and if you are part of the 51%?

you would say "well, I ought to represent the 49% more than the 51%"