Message from @4AM_critter π
Discord ID: 519620278473588736
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 donβt 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 π 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 βwinner take it allβ 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