[Klorissana]

The electoral college isn't what holds third parties back. If a handful of large states weren't winner-takes-all (California, New York and Texas would probably be enough), it would arguably foster third parties, because they could become compromise candidates in the House of Representatives.

He didn't specify exactly how he thinks the electoral system should be changed.

[Kamepherype]

Bush jr winning while getting less votes than Al Gore is an example of American politics being broken, the guy who got less votes won.

Another from that same election would be Bush jr winning because the 1 million minority in a country of 300 million known as Cuban Americans deciding the election, if the whole issue of the Elian kid who was sent back to Cuba had never happened, Cuban Americans wouldn't have felt the need to punish democrats, and Al Gore would have won Florida, and Saddam would still rule Iraq.

If you change the electoral system, you change the politics, you would have more political parties too

Cuban Americans will always hate the Democrats because John Kennedy didn't back them up at the Bay of Pigs with the full weight of the entir United States military.

[Jon Woodgate]

i'm not sure what you mean by corruption, but there's no reason to suppose that a proportional system would encourage corruption any more than a FPTP system.

I would suppose a higher number of party toadies get in using party lists, no?

I can see that leading to an appearance of greater corruption.

the majority of countries in europe have proportional systems and they work well. it does have one big problem, namely that it severs the link between the constituency and the MP (although this often the case as well under FPTP as parties impose candidates on local constituencies). however it does allow people to actually express their political preferences in a meaningful way and prevents tactical voting. it really depends on what you consider more important.
That's the largest problem. The lack of representation for constituents. To solve one problem you undermine what to me is the most important function of our legislatures.

[duawLauff]

That's the largest problem. The lack of representation for constituents. To solve one problem you undermine what to me is the most important function of our legislatures.

Indeed. That is a major issue. That's why I agree that preferential voting is preferable. Or a blend - continue to have the current FPTP with preferential voting and add 100 more representatives selected by Proportional Representation, a blend kind of like the German system. Though that may get a bit too complicated at least in the beginning years.

[bitymnmictada]

I dunno about that. Democratic Representatives from my state of Georgia (they do exist, though their numbers had been culled quite a bit in the 2010 elections) may disagree about just being beholden to their party. The term Blue Dog defines 'em.

[cigattIcTot]

That's what is nice about the US. Generally our Reps. and Senators don't march lock step with the party. So while we only have two parties on paper, in reality we have many more voting blocks and viewpoints. Which gives us huge diversity in Congress despite the letter people put next to their name.

[xochgtlm]

Yeah, our (US) problems mostly revolve around the ridiculous amount of power that money has on our political processes. Well that and the idea that we need to demonize the other side.

[BundEnhamma]

You see it in the Walker thread. Lots of talk about the money of unions vs money of corporations. Not much talk about the citizens....

[colmedindustry]

That's what is nice about the US. Generally our Reps. and Senators don't march lock step with the party. So while we only have two parties on paper, in reality we have many more voting blocks and viewpoints. Which gives us huge diversity in Congress despite the letter people put next to their name.

There is an increasing tendency for congressmen to march lockstep with their party.

[EmpokemyMok]

There is an increasing tendency for congressmen to march lockstep with their party.

During the Bush era, certainly. But not in the last four years. Obama can't at all wrangle the Democrats. Look at Ben Nelson and all the **** with the health care law. And now, since 2010, look at the Tea Party folks. The GOP has lost all the party discipline it had under Bush (a very good thing).

[leflyCode]

Shall we look at larger populations than the US and see how much they spend? I haven't looked but I suspect I know what I would find.

[AmfitNom]

During the Bush era, certainly. But not in the last four years. Obama can't at all wrangle the Democrats. Look at Ben Nelson and all the **** with the health care law. And now, since 2010, look at the Tea Party folks. The GOP has lost all the party discipline it had under Bush (a very good thing).

Sorry, but I disagree:

http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin_join...and_senate.htm

There are less and less moderates as polarization increases.

The fact that the Democrats don't have 100% party discipline doesn't prove your point, because they never did. Every single Republican voted against the health care law even though the entire reform was taken from Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation.

[brulpcoersero]

Shall we look at larger populations than the US and see how much they spend? I haven't looked but I suspect I know what I would find.

I don't have a great source for this, but I found this comment to an Ezra Klein article:

Per Capita the spending is not out of line with what happens in other countries. The Canadians spend $300 million, or $9. At $9 per capita we'd spend $2.8 Billion. Obama/McCain was half that. Add in winning House candidates (435*1.4 million is pretty close to $600 Million), and Senators (33 were up, they spent $9 each or $300 million) and you're up $2.3 Billion US.

Granted I haven't accounted for the expenditures of losing Congressional candidates, but a lot of those guys had no money to spend. Even if they spent as much as the winners we're to $3.2 Billion, which is pretty close to the $2.8 Billion Canada would be spending if they had our population.

Lots of people think there's too much money in our elections, but it's not clear that we'd spend a whole lot less if we funded our elections the way other rich democracies do. It's simply impossible to reach 300,000,000 Americans without a massive warchest.

[gundos]

What constitutes a "good local MP"? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I really am interested in what you see in these people that puts them above the rest.

[maxsobq]

I don't have a great source for this, but I found this comment to an Ezra Klein article:

The source of the cash is a critical distinction. Are the politico's beholden to GM, the UAW or the citizens (and sorry, despite your absurd SCOTUS ruling, GM is not a person...)?