@4AM_critter 🐉 okay, all 20 get some percent of the vote. what now? take the top 7?

Yes, but they have to pick one person for six years.

Yes the top seven get he seats.

what happens if less than 7 get votes.

Which is why I dont want them to pick a person, because they dont care about the state as a whole, what they care about is their own re-election

its only like 4 people @4AM_critter 🐉

Then that senator is no longer beholden to the people, he becomes beholden to the state representatives which elected him

They don't elect him.

Appointed whaterver

So we should vote on supreme court judges?

Thats what the Senate is for

....

They're supposed to think about how people in the state will be affected by that judge

No.

They're supposed to think about how the state will be effected.

No?

Why would they think about how their state government will be affected?

pretty sure they don't think about either

Because that's what all of their job functions revolve around.

they think about will this person make a good addition, and you vote for them in hopes that how they think about that judge will be reflected by you

In the system which you describe yes

In the current system no

In the current system yes.

Why do their jobs in the federal government revolve around state government?

`Bills may be introduced in either chamber of Congress. However, the Constitution's Origination Clause provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".[53] As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds.[54][55][56] Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, when the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures.[57]

Although the Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respect of spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:

The Senate's right to amend general appropriation bills has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.[58]

The approval of both houses is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by sending amendments back and forth or by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.`

Their role is to make sure that the reps don't fuck shit up too much.

In our system, any spill over votes a candidate gets goes to the hext candidate on the list. Each party put up at least as many candidates as there are seats up for election. That means that votes excessive votes and party votes get distributed to the next person on the list.
A classic example is one very popular candidate gets elected and takes 3-4 extra seats for his party.
Another classic example is a candidate at the bottom on the list blows past all the others and win a seat.

Here we don’t have primaries. The election and lust placement of candidates is an internal party matter

so really only 1 person for that party gets elected, and the rest are just elected by the party if they get extra?

Yes, but all candidates most be announced before the elction.

like your preferred party has 1 guy you like. so you vote for him. And everyone else mostly voted for him. You voting for him can end up getting like 3 more people that no one voted for into office?

Hence it matter what order your name is on the ballot.

Yes in theory.

Wouldn't everyone voting for all 7 seats be better? Assuming only 1 person per seat.

A classic example would be the party PVV in the Netherlands, most people vote for that party for Gert Wilders, but the party have other representatives elected also.

Correct me if i am wrong. @Dr.Wol

i was summoned

Then you get a two party system again. @Grenade123

yeah i believe thats how its done in the PVV

but his party has a 1-policy maker though,

the other representatives just have Wilder's policies

Hi Dr I was being a smart ass in regards to dutch politics, I choose that cause Gert Wilders international known

they're basically just mouthpieces for him

@4AM_critter 🐉 do you? you could fix that by saying you can only put up say 4 or 5 candidates. That would force people vote across party lines, meaning they will most likely vote for A) moderates or B) a 3rd or 4th party if they really hate their main rivels.

I am trying to explain the electoral system by D'Hondts, a belgian, that is used in most european countries

better than me getting Hiliary or Pence elected into an office because my preferred candidate happened to win really well.

to me, your system sounds like a bait and switch. A way the Dems could put Bernie at the face and get Hillary into an position of power kind of deal.

rather than 7 elected representatives from two parties, you get potentially only 1 elected representative, and 3 or 4 cronies.

you think THATS bad?

the previous dutch cabinet was a coalition between
"Business democrats"
and
"The labor party"

cuz people voted both of those in the most, but neither could make a majority

so people voted for Right-wingers and ended up with socialists

Imagine going to vote for President and you and everyone could chose between Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Bush and others. Would Hillary or Bernie or a third candidate win?

thats how it currently works? well, minus the primaries bs

"35% votes right-wing, 25% votes socialist"

congrats, you now have socialist policies

but that is just for parties. there is no limit to people who can run. Bernie could have run independent i believe. and there is write in.

tbh, i'd rather abolish parties

but i don't see that happening

Prop rep really only makes sense if A: you don't care about regional representation and B: you care about parties

abolishing parties is like abolishinggovernment: a nice idea until two or more people team up and break the new system

pretty much

The presidential election was a poor example from my side. It is always a “winner take it all” situation. The better use would be house of reps.
Take the New York election. Would AOC be elected if she was not the dems first candidate?

Very few election systems actually mentions parties/election lists. Humans by nature are social and will form groups.

with your system? most likely still have gotten in anyway.

although i'm not sure how things work given that term limits don't end all at once with our system

so you are voting for only a few seats at a time usually

so you'd have to reset the cycle

Sorry I got to go, it was a nice chat.

@Beemann maybe we should go completely back to the original way president and vp were selected

Tbh though the actual issue is consolidation of federal power

You ever see a leftist youtuber named Jack Saint?

One of his videos has gone viral recently, a video about how that old disney movie "Sky High" is fascist propaganda. It's clearly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but he actually makes a pretty solid case for how it's fascist in nature

but then i watched some of his other videos

hoo boy

one of them even called out and used clips of Tim

his video on how the NPC meme is a fascist propaganda tool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GszBA33SWQ

it's a very stupid concept but he's not *such* a dick about it that it really makes ma angry or anything

it's almost enjoyable to watch

he seems to have a decent personality

and he goes with the joke, pretending to cough up batteries and such lmao

>pronounces pseudo "swaydo"
Opinion disregarded

>complains a joke isn't factually accurate
>jumps to Aydin's video that actually debunks the factual claim people were trying to make alongside the joke
Wew

"old" disney movie, "sky high"

never heard of it

Yeah this video definitely isn't tongue in cheek. He's butthurt and comparing light mockery to fascism and kicking dogs

>b-but if I predict people will call me butthurt and play le safeword game it means I'm not XD

lol

im not saying this one is tongue in cheek, his Sky High video was

this one is just butthurt

yeah i hate when they think that lampshading their bullshit makes it not bullshit

like when a movie calls out how bad it is
but then proceeds to continue being bad

I like how he calls light mockery propaganda and acts as though it's Goebbels tier shit, but simultaneously makes a deliberate propaganda video labeling Tim as anti left and Aydin as someone who is trying to prove the factual accuracy of the inner narrative study
0/10, would bully

lol

who's Aydin?

Another Youtuber AydinPaladin. She makes long videos discussing all sorts of stuff that she does a lot of research on and provides sources to back up what she's saying.

She was a media psych professor iirc

oh yeah now i know

i forgot her name for a bit

and now i remember him having that video in his

lmfao

what bullshit

She straight up says it's probably not true given the actual data, but that it's funny, and that it's just a joke anyway in the video he screengrabs lol