A big difference is that the US President has real power. Does the German one have much? (how is the German President elected?)
I’m sure our favourite poster will be along again shortly to crow about the result and talk about how liberals now understand the importance of separation of powers.
sorry, I am not following. difference to what? my comment was solely based on the discussion about a more fair election system and @Otherbrother’s objection that a solution is in the work
more or less nada, he/she has to sign laws and look not too stupid when greeting state guests (this is the slightly abbreviated description)
(one of the weird German compromises, only very indirectly involving the general public. if your really reallyreally want to learn more: have fun)
I worded stuff badly. I was just trying to suggest that since the US President has a much bigger power than heads of states in other countries do, so a popular mandate should be required. Certainly if you lose in a two-horse race, I don’t see how you get to be the winner (yes, it’s the rules as written…).
But I just live here. I don’t really understand federal systems. I’m used to having a Queen in charge of the whole thing, so maybe I’m just missing something about how vitally important it is that people in Wyoming have a vote that is four times as powerful as the people in California. Or, indeed, why winner takes all of winner takes all in a stacked system where some winners are more equal than others makes any sense at all.
It is, when there’s one person representing the whole thing.
Maybe they should do something like Approval Voting. I always kind of like the idea of that one.
maybe I am using “representive system” not correctly, mostly I meant dividing the whole in more manageble chunks.
imagine an election with results like that
distr votes for A for B
1 7 3
2 6 4
3 3 7
4 4 6
5 2 8
6 4 6
7 3 7
8 6 4
9 9 1
sum 44 46
repr 4 5
the end result is very narrow, if only 2 votes (~ 2%) are shifted from B to A (be it an honest error or malice) the outcome is different.
when the results of the districts are counted/used individually B still wins and two moved votes from B to A make less of an impact (only when in district 4 (or 6) both votes (20 %) ending in A’s pot, the end result changes to a draw. I propose a revolver duel to decide the outcome)
=> an error margin of 2 % is not impossible, but 20 % are hard to reach
such systems are not perfect to map the general vote to the end result but are, as I said above, more robust
if I understood the congressional district method used in Maine and Nebraska* correctly it follows a similar approach, not one result for the whole state but different outcomes for the election in the congressional districts
Yep. So if that was done nationally, the Presidential result would more closely match the House one (and reflect all the gerrymandering in it). The two extra votes equivalent to the senators are given to the popular vote winner.
Well, that too, but…also, the thing of it being 18 years ago get over it already fucking right-wing rubes
If you’d known me back then (and maybe you did? We’re just random Internet people) you’d know my stance even back then was that it should have been between Bill, Hillary, and Monica, nobody else. Dragging Monica Lewinsky through the mud? Hell, that was about the worst part of it, because you and I both know that many of the men who shamed her for it, desire that same sexual act. Maybe it was a lapse of judgment, but you know what else kills me about that incident? Bill Clinton wanted to act on intel about Osama bin Laden, and Trent Lott killed it so they could focus on more important things.
Investigating fellatio was more important than going after al-Qaeda.
As a woman, for me, it’s still the misogyny. I’m going to have to live here with that. My daughter has to live here with that. It never lets up and it never goes away.