Could Trump win under a Proportional System?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Could Trump or Sanders win if the US used a proportional system?
The United States uses first passed the post for its electoral system, but many have argued that a proportional system would better represent the nation in the house of representatives. Here, we look at how America would look if it used the fully proportional system that is used in the Netherlands.
For our experiment we gave trump his own 'Make America Great again' party, Hillary Clinton the establishment Democrats, Bernie Sanders Progressives- we even included Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
Will Trump or Sanders be able to take the Primeministership?
*****
Download Your Wallpapers Here: goo.gl/DTwHMq
*****
Check our calculations here: goo.gl/78nfZT
The data used in this analysis comes from realclearpolitics:
www.realclearpo...
www.realclearpo...
www.realclearpo...
Follow me on twitter: soliloquy084
Like the FaceBook page: soliloquy084
Dutch Elections Act (English) for anyone who wants more details of the system being applied, for us the important part is chapter P:
www.government...
Music Credits
News Theme by Kevin (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
Jazz in Paris by Media Right Productions (UA-cam Music Library)
Image Credits
Theresa May Photo: UK Home Office
Gordon Brown's official portrait: HM Government
File:Angela Merkel: Armin Linnartz (creative commons 2.0)
Gerhard Schröder: SPD-Schleswig-Holstein (creative commons 2.0)
Hellen Cleark: United Nations Development Programme
Mark Rutte Fotograaf by Nick van Ormondt
Proportional voting means the major parties can't simply corrupt themselves more and more, without risking that a 3rd or 4th party takes them over as the major party.
Cheydinal
But proportional has its own problems as well. What if each party is incredibly corrupt, and when that party gets the votes, all they do is elect the same corrupt people every time?
@@KnuxMaster368 Yes, this is a legitimate problem. However, at least there is a chance in a proportional system that some (or all) previously dominant parties lose their position in elections. For example, in Germany (where we have a MMP system), the classical center-left party (SPD) which was one of the two major parties for 60 years, has lost votes ever since they lost the election in 2005 and Angela Merkel (center-right party) took over as Chancellor. Once the SPD had usually 30 to 45 % of the votes - now the polls show that they can expect a maximum of 10-15 % in the next election in 2021. Meanwhile, the Green Party (previously getting about 5-8 % of the votes and ruling the country as the junior coalition partner of the SPD from 1998 to 2005) is now expected to get at least 20 % of the votes in 2021, coming in second after the CDU/CSU (center-right). So effectively, the Greens and the SPD have switched positions in the party system. There are many complicated reasons for this development, but the essential fact is, that the Greens have transformed from a small, primarily environmental, left-leaning party to a more centristic and less radical party which is open to coalitions with both the center-right and the center-left parties and even rules the state of Baden-Württemberg leading a coalition with the CDU. Long story short: Such developments are only possible in a proportional system.
KnuxMaster 368 then a new party which isn’t corrupt can form and possibly win a bunch of seats- voters would vote for them knowing that their votes count and aren’t wasted on smaller or newer parties like in FPTP.
KnuxMaster 368 “What if PR has a problem that FPTP always has?” BIG BRAIN
@@wearealreadydeadfam8214 Nah, it really is a problem that in some PR systems (party lists), the party can really just decide who gets on the list, and what spot on the list. So that centralizes party control a whole lot more.
Although in the UK FPTP system, party leaders can actually literally expel candidates from the party, forcing them to either run as an Independent or not at all. So even FPTP *can* have very centralised parties, but for example in the US, it's much less so
Especially the "Single Transferable Vote" (STV) system is pretty much as decentralized as FPTP: It basically has small voting districts of about 5 winners each, where voters can get proportional representation by ranking candidates individually (so even those very small party lists aren't binding)
Dude. GET A PATREON. That's all I'm gonna say.
I have very (almost) secret plans
+Soliloquy I feel like you and CGP Grey should team up for a video or two
+CD3MC
That of cause would be amazing for me, but I fear don't really have the numbers to make it worth his while. But, if Grey is reading this, my door is open ...
It actually is nessesary to have proportional electorial systems everywhere, otherwise if a 1st world country (like Greece) is about to be degraded, there will not be any stable governments.
I agree. This guy needs a patreon. What if this was seen more when it made?
Every American citizen needs to watch this video.
Well, not the babies, small children, and old people close to death.
Smooooth *sigh* of course.
***** true
+Smooooth
maybe we should make a baby subliminal message version for those young ones
I personally prefer The Single Transferable Vote to Mixed Member Porportional, but if I had to choose between the latter and First Past The Post, I would DEFINITELY choose M.M.P...
Regarding Political Junkie's final words, yes, a proportional system absolutely *is* worth fighting for. Even if the ultimate party that forms government and picks the Prime Minister, Chancellor, or other head of state (be it de facto or de jure) is always one of two parties, having more minor party representation means that the people who voted for those have a higher chance of their voices being heard.
If you're a far left leaning person in a FPTP system, you're forced to vote for the moderate left party, and it's likely that far left opinions will never be heard. Likewise if you're a libertarian, you're forced to vote for a conservative right party or a progressive left party, and as far as the politicians are concerned, you pretty much agree with those positions and they're going to keep on doing what they're doing. If instead you can force coalitions, the major two parties will have to bargain with the smaller parties in order to form government, and in doing so the opinions of those more minor parties are being more fairly represented. It's quite easy to see, for example, in Australia, the effect of the Greens pulling our Labor party slightly left, and our extreme conservative parties (of which there are quite a few that have been prominently featured recently) pulling the Liberal National Coalition more to the right. And that's just because of the Senate. The effect would be far more pronounced if we had a proportional lower house.
Thanks for the feedback, Jim.
As this was a thought experiment, my final words were also my way of challenging my own thinking on this issue. It was a 'Devil's Advocate' thing- not really an explication of my true feelings.
And I totally agree with you as I want a proportional system or some variation thereof!
@Political Junky Also about that last statement. There are no 2 mayor parties in the Netherlands who always rule. in the 80's the Christians were always in power, but that was because they were not right or left in the spectrum. So they could work together with either side. They went to the opposition in the 90's because the larger 2 right and left parties could form a alliance with some small "kingmaker"party's. But alto they are a third smaller than the big party's allot of the small parties are "big". Out of the 150 seats 7 parties had more then 10 seats in the last election. The new election polls show a total difference seat count. Giving 9 parties going over 9 seats per party. So there is something to vote for!
Redduke over 9 parties! That's awesome. Coalition making must be hard though...
Similar thing in Denmark. The blocks or alliances change over time, as events, population and other factors change. Sometimes you have smaller or larger landslide elections that completely change the landscape.
As a political "junkie" I would have thought you were aware of that.
However Americas real problem is the lack of any decent candidate whatsoever. Being stuck with 2 people representing oligarchy, a christian nutjob, and 2 minor idealists without coherent political plan, there's no real choice besides Bernie, and if you're not in the Bernie camp then you're SOL.
Unfortunately, I find it hard to see it as positive the way the minor parties are pulling the major ones further apart. Labor being pulled left by the Greens SHOULD make me happy as a progressive, but when they needed the Greens to form government with Gillard and brought in the carbon tax (which I think was a perfectly good policy) it just alienated lots of voters who aren't that far left and caused them to go hard right with Abbott in response (my dad was a lifelong Labor voter who switched to Abbott over the carbon tax among over things). The Liberals being pulled right by Hanson and the like... do I really need to say anything?
I feel had we actually implemented proportional representation in the U.S we'd end up with mostly Democrat/Republicans but we'd have alot more "bridgebuilders", that is perhaps rural Democrats and urban Republicans, in addition to a couple libertarians and Greens.
SinnedNogara
Yes.
Back in the good old days the parties mean't way less. There were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. I'd prefer things going back to that system over proportional representation that gives far too much power to fringe groups and destroys the balance of powers system.
@@williamkrause5831 Well yeah - Republicans were originally 'liberal' abolitionists and Democrats were originally conservative racists.
@@TheRenegade... democrats were rural anti-federalist populist, republicans have always been the party of big business.
@@TheRenegade... I wouldn't call the original republican party liberal, Abolition for example was not a purely liberal movement, the puritans would not be considered liberal were extremely religious but also supported Abolition.
UK's 2015 general election is an excellent argument for a proportional system. It was probably the worst election result in British history. UKIP getting 12.7% of the vote and one seat in parliamnet while SNP getting 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats in parliament. No matter which side you are on theres no way to justify that as being fair or representitive.
That's because SNP is an Scotland-only party so they need less votes to get representation. Take on account that Scotland is 5,2 million people while England is 53 million, so a proportional arrangement is needed in a way that Scotland interests cannot be overshadowed by England's interests continuosly. This is called D'Hondt method and it is also present in my country, Spain.
The SNP only got 50% of the votes in Scotland but they won every constituency. Scotland's entirely represented by seperatists when unionists make up half of the population (well did, Brexit probably changed that).
SinnedNogara Nope. In 2015 the SNP only got 56 of the 59 Scottish seats. There was one Tory, one Labor and one Lib Dem in Scotland.
That's because Scottish independence, English Bureaucracy over the UK and the fact that the English Government are the one who took over the UK Government.
The UK is EU in a smaller scale.
Wasn't one of the candidates an Elmo?
Bless you for this video, Soliloquy. It's unfortunate to be an American libertarian who wants a multi-party system so desperately. Seriously, it's so frustrating and boring to have only two parties dominate the narrative. The example you laid out would be so much more engaging and productive in our political dialogue.
In response to that idea to which humans think in dichotomies, especially in politics, even when there is a multi-party system, I think that lies in the parliamentary system function of forming majority-coalition governments and prime ministers. Having a coalition of 51% of parliament, no matter how many parties are agreed to form the coalition, still creates a dichotomy. Granted, a multi-party dichotomy is better than a two-party dichotomy, but it still is an issue.
I'm drawn to what Switzerland has going for it. They have 11 parties represented in the legislature, of a wide variety of sizes, no one party holds a majority, but it also simply acts as a federal congress of sorts, similar to the United States, and not a parliamentarian government. Switzerland also has a Federal Council which replaces the single-dude presidency, and there are the four largest parties in that council- which is interesting for such a small country like Switzerland, so I'm wondering how it'd work out for the massive 325,000,000 person conglomerate that is the United States. Either way, thank you for this video, I now have something to share with people about my weird obsession with multi-party politics.
I have to go read about Switzerland now! Thanks for this
A comment very much worth reading, Liam! The Swiss system is quite fascinating and unique among the world's democratic systems, I believe. Furthermore, it's adequately built for federal nations like Switzerland or the USA. It promotes direct democracy and political cooperation.
That being said, I'd say it would be quite the challenge to implement the Swiss system in the States given that it depends very heavily on cooperation and consensus. Switzerland is a consociational state. I don't want to sound too negative here, but to my understanding, the US legislative branch today is pretty much hung in a stalemate of conflict and confrontation, US citizens used to horse race politics. The US president is elected by the people, not by parliament and is constitutionally provided with a lot of power.
Changing to the Swiss model would mean not only to abandon presidential democracy but the very concept of a "US President". A softer approach would be to use the French system (France being another presidential democracy) or maybe the German system (a federal parliamentary democracy with the chancellor being elected by parliament, which itself is elected through a proportional system, namely MMP).
I've been reading about the Swiss system on wikipedia this morning. Thanks again for the shout. It's really interesting. Do you know any good sources for more information? Even like a book or something? The wikipedia sources section is a bit bare.
If not, no worries.
Have a good day,
Will
Well, I'll admit that my own knowledge of the Swiss system is limited as well, and maaaaay or may not come from wikipedia as well, but it seems to have resulted in fairly decent government stability, at perhaps some cost of volatility of the size of the parties. There seem to be four big players, the Swiss People's Party, Social Democrats, Free Democratic Party, and Christian Democratic People's Party. I found this document on the system, although it is slightly outdated: www.andreasladner.ch/dokumente/aufsaetze/West_European_Politics_2001_al.pdf
What I love is the obvious diversity of the parties and the ability, at least seemingly, to go through the process of government in tact. If you find a more book-ish reading on the Swiss system (like a book), I'd greatly appreciate a word on it.
-Liam
I'll let you know. I'm deep in reading for a few other projects, but when I get to reading about the Swiss system, I'll comment here with an update
The outcome is not "the same" under a proportional system. While there's still probably going to be 2 big parties, they're also likely to still need a "kingmaker" party. This means they have to compromise so we get less extreme governments.
The idea of a kingmaker party is interesting, something like jury duty system that would break ties.
Then again, Israel is very proportional, and yet tiny extreme parties have had a sway on Likud for a long while.
Then again, the government that ousted him is a mish mash, so lots of compromise
No doubt it would make a difference. Voter turnout is low because systemically, most voters aren't represented under the current arrangement; and they know it. The two systems might arrive at the same place, but owing to participation of the electorate, only the proportional system is representative. American style democracy, as it exists today, by accident or design is not democracy at all.
Jeremy Jacobsen
The proportional system can tend to corruption, as the party could put their corrupt members at the top of the list, and they'd never lose.
YES proportional representation IS worth fighting for.
I agree
Absolutely. That last thing they said about there being “only two major parties” in most systems is plainly false. Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, the Nordic Nations, and so many other Nations have several large political parties. Proportional representation is 100% worth it if a multiparty system is the goal
Yes let's get in the streets
@The smore emperor This is why we need liberal democracy, where there are guidelines to what a president/prime minister can do. Separation of powers help too
@@peterearl9595 and then prepared to be beaten off them.
I suspect that more people would vote in US election if it was proportional. And that I think is valuable. It seems at least to be a tread with proportional systems.
(Proportional system may not be the best system. But it seems better. And it might be a stepping stone towards even better systems of governance.)
I agree that an advantage of proportional representation is reduced voter apathy but what do you think would be those even better systems of governance?
Soliloquy
Well the whole point validation of democracy is the idea that the people should be a part of government. Have there say. That many are better then one.
If that actually is the case or not well... I admit that this still debated. A efficient autocracy seem far better, at least at first glance. But general I think most would agree that Democracy creates better governments then autocracies in the long run.
This is likely related to how well developed a nation is to. My guess is that a educated population actually creates stronger democracies.
Having reduced apathy would also mean people would be more willing to engage in politics as well as support common goals. This in it self could have positive effects on society. Apathy I see as the real danger to democracy.
So Switzerland's direct democracy then, everyone can be involved. But it might be costly to have a referendum on things for one and I don't actually know how their voter apathy is. Might have to look into that one.
Soliloquy
Yeah I am not a expert on Switzerland's politics. But it seems like a pretty nice place so they can not be doing it horribly wrong. ;)
Proportional also has a massive issue.
If they have a party list system, and the top of the list contains corrupt members, then you have corrupt, out of touch people that cannot lose their election.
This would be the best system in my opinion
Not a ranked voting system?
Ranked voting system would be awesome, but talking to some less technical people it turned out it is still really complected for most people, or to much trouble to find out their second, third choices
Political Junkie I liked the one discussed in the video the most. CPG Grey has spoken of something similar in the past and I think a parliamentary system with the voting system mentioned in the video would be the best because it allows to make a ranked choice so they can vote for someone they like at the same time not wasting their vote. I realize now my comment was pretty unclear.
I like ranked voting too. Grey's series on voting systems was very informative-
And no worries about your previous comment! It's just nice to have a reasonable exchange in YoutTube comments!
I am well familiar with grey ranked voting system. and it is mathematical one of the best, but statistical it is not. everyone's first choices are easy, but after that the noise becomes louder and louder till no data can be found. That is why I believe it is better to have more than one representer to make sure you get the best outcome
Haha, at 5:42 Johnson's topic is Syria. "What is Aleppo?"
Soliloquy has the best easter eggs. The best. Tremendous. Bigly.
I think easter eggs are much easier in animations, and with so many disadvantages of being an animated channel I have to make use of the advantages!!!
I also really like the Firstness breaking news.
Soliloquy I sent you an E-Mail and never got a reply.
Alima, I received your email when I woke up yesterday, about 24 hours ago. So, firstly have some patience, you won't have a good time UA-caming without it. Secondly, I replied yesterday morning, so 17 hours **before** you made this comment, telling you that I don't give shoutouts to channels on request - no matter how rudely the email is written. If you see another channel mentioned here it will be because I genuinely think the content they are putting out is great.
I think you made a mistake in your video. You base a lot of the argumentation on the Dutch system of proportional representation, but end the video suggesting that even that system leads to a system with only two opposing major parties. That is inaccurate. For the largest part of recent history (last 30 years) the Dutch system has had three major parties (CDA - christian democrats, VVD - liberals and PvdA - labour), two to three medium sized parties (D66 - democrats, SP - socialist party, and GL - greens) and a variable selection of small parties. The last 10 years have not gravitated us towards a more major-party system, but rather a splintering of political parties, making the forming of a coalition particularly difficult.
A final comment on the video, you represented in the last bit the two dutch major parties in your video (VVD and PvdA) by Mark Rutte, the current leader of the VVD, and Wim Kok the leader of PvdA in the 1990s. That seems like a mismatch to me.
With regards to your first issue. Will is somewhat playing devil's advocate here, I think it is important to look at what the opposing arguments are, and in this case, I don't think they are entirely without merit. In general, we do find two major parties present at any given time. This isn't an absolute rule, but a generalisation, there are several examples for that differ from this.
As for your second point, in each case I have shown the last leader from the current two major parties to hold the head of government position; Wim Kok was the last PvdA Prime Minister and so was included.
Which means basically that you have taken the last PvdA prime minister, and skipped a CDA (third major party for a large period of time) prime minister that served 3 terms. And still have used the Dutch situation as one example of a 2-major-party system. In the flow of your video, which I find an excellent dissemination of the two democratic systems, I still find it misrepresents the Dutch situation, since it is not really an example of a system that has ever gravitated towards only two major parties.
@@MartijnMuijsers I don't know if that's true. Things are pretty stable on the right and Christian flanks, it's just that the left is heavily splintered between four parties that really need to present a unified stance.
1:47 "You Should Subscribe." Worth the effort to decode.
Yeah it's one of the more cryptic "you should subscribe" messages I've done.
Totally ignored the Senate and the Presidency. How someone could 'analyze' the USA political system without mentioning the Senate is beyond me. The other thing they didn't mention is the primary system. In fact it seemed that whoever made this video really had no idea of how the USA system works.
Ehh STV or ranked ballots for the senate should suffice.
He mentioned trump being prime minister so he clearly imagines a typical european proportional representation.
how about tossing some Single Transferable Vote in there...
Next time :)
We wanted a data driven approach and it's difficult to find polling information about 2nd choices of primary voters.
To play it safe and not integrate too many variables, we kept with a proplortional system.
I know FairVote did some redistricting involving multi-member congressinal districts in the United States. I suppose you could look up election data from a few congressional districts and combine the votes to figure out who would win in a multi-member district?
They actually have combined FPTP with STV in Puerto Rico
knowing how much gary johnson dislikes trump I doubt they'd ever form a coalition
Well with polling at 8% distancing himself from the Donald seems to be working.
Spain is a big example of this going wrong. They are about to enter a third election cycle as all parties refuse to form a coalition.
Political Junkie I already watched your video on the matter mate
GlitchyShadow Well then. You know what I mean then :)
Thanks for watching.
-Will
The Exploration with William C. Fox
and that's why proportional can also be bad. What if a few very large parties say, "No deals, whatsoever", like what happened with the Liberal Democrats in the UK in 2017
Lets go the Dutch way! Greetings from the Netherlands haha.
Greetings from the Netherlands, also.
Liam Curran Can't deny that
Even if everyone in the country wanted that, it would take years for Congress to actually do anything about it, if ever.
Soliloquy arent u a new zeelander?
The Netherlands will become an Islamic state in a 10 years so none of this is relevant as Sharia law takes over that country.
The Dutch system looks great. We need it!
PR isn't just about third parties having a chance at holding seats in the House of Representatives and producing more diversity of opinion. It's also about fixing some of the most broken aspects of our electoral system. Gerrymandering is a significant defect in the American system, and it's only possible because of the existence of single-member districts with candidates elected by FPTP rules. Even some form of runoff voting (IRV or two-round) won't fix this. PR would solve the issue, though, as proportional systems have multi-member districts, making it very difficult (if not outright impossible in certain PR systems) to gerrymander.
Proportional representation done right means having no districts. It means all voters in a jurisdiction electing all the representatives of their legislature.
Proportional representation means no local representatives that are in touch with a local population.
As someone from the Netherlands, I'd say I'd prefer if you said "Second Chamber" or "House of Representatives" instead of "Tweede Kamer." It just breaks the flow of the English sentence it's in. Plus, "House of Representatives" is a more meaningful concept handle for people who don't speak Dutch.
108th
good to "see" you here. love your channel!
:D
4815162342nd
Any system under which Trump can win is a faulty system.
I find it fascinating how you split up the American major parties. In terms of the splitting of the Republicans, I would have thought that Ted Cruz would be the leader of the religious conservatives (calling themselves the Christian Republic Party? Christian Democracy Party? Family First Party? Who knows) and that the Tea Partiers would have joined with the Libertarians, either under Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. That is just my view, you are still one of my favourite UA-camrs :)
Christian democratic party
i think there would be more factions yeagh
Economist here. My two cents.
Game Theory conclusively shows that in a “winner take all“ representative system, a two party system is inevitable.
I am a passionate believer of understanding the history, especially geographic history, of a civilization to truly understand how it came to be what it is.
Being a professor, I interact with a lot of international people. And even the highly educated “non-Americans“ are almost always flabbergasted once they truly begin to understand the system.
My country began via revolutionaries (traitorous criminals from the then British perspective) who were the minority. The popular majority did not want to leave Britain, but merely wanted to reform how they were viewed and treated.
Regardless, flashing forward, the revolutionaries won (with a lot of help from Napoleon) and our first government was a dismal failure. It was so weak, we weren’t really even a country but merely a “confederation“ of other “countries” (states). In 1789 that changed when the states realize, for their own protection (from the British) they needed a stronger federal government. So “the constitution” was ratified by the 13 States (only after a compromise called “the Bill of Rights“ which became the first 10 amendments to the constitution) , but even then, the federal government could NOT, for instance, levy an income tax without proportionally distributing what they collected back to the states.
This principle is called “state sovereignty“, or nowadays, “states rights“. Hence, most laws that actually govern citizens and residents are STATE and not federal laws. If you sell real estate, you get a state license. If you sell life insurance you get a state license. If you’re a physician, you get a state license. Speed limits, driver regulations, school content and standards, etc.. all these sorts of things were and very much still are a providence of the states.
There is a small city on the California/Arizona border called Yuma. For a couple decades, if you got caught with an ounce bag of weed on the California side, it was a simple misdemeanor along the lines of a traffic ticket. On the Arizona side of the city, a mandatory seven year prison sentence!!
The same phenomena describes why some American states have outstanding world class educational systems, and others are on the lines of Third World countries.
Applying this to our topic of discussion, the Constitution does not mandate HOW a state sends it’s “electors“ to the electoral college. A state is not even required to have an election! Theoretically, a state could choose to simply have a lottery, or as actually practiced by many of the original states… Citizens of states elected their own state legislative bodies, who in turn elected the president.
The political science of this at the time, was fear of real democracy, which in “the Federalist papers“, Madison argued was as dangerous as a tyrant. The whimsical “tyranny of the mob” was very much on their mind, as was the wire from their perspective of the recent French revolution.
Also, at that time most people were either illiterate or low-literate, they worked 6 to 7 long days per week, and it was argued that “the people“ generally lacked the education, the time, or the resources to adequately apply their minds to advanced affairs of governance. Hence, much better for them to elect somebody local they know and trust to represent them.
This is why the United States, among the worlds democracies, is probably the least democratic of all of them. Almost any parliamentary system will be much more democratic than the US system BY DESIGN.
Now, will America ever change its system in this regard? I seriously doubt it. Do a Google search of our last election “by county” and look at the map. Trump won in a landslide by geographic area. In the district I live in, he got 87% of the vote.
California, New York, Michigan, perhaps even Texas… Could live with the popular vote model… But the small states regardless of ideology would NEVER go along with it. Our least populous state, Wyoming I believe, receives MASSIVE over representation in relation to California, Michigan, Texas, etc. so the small states are NEVER going to give that up. Never.
Lastly, on a different topic of your interesting video, I want to correct your perception of “libertarians“.
So most bona fide libertarians on issues of civil rights are more extreme in this regard than any Democrat. What makes them resemble Republican rhetoric somewhat is most of them adamantly believe “big government“ is a bad thing, that government should pay for the values they purchase. They want weak government with a minimum level of “collectivism“ and a maximum level of individual liberty.
Consider arguably the godmother of the modern Libertarian movement, Ayn Rand, absolutely HATED conservatives, especially religious conservatives, arguing they would be the distraction of the country. The magazine and newspaper editorials that most viciously went against her, were not the leftist publications, but the ones on the right like “national review”.
I have not personally measured this, but I’ve read academic studies in political science journals that have, and a big difference between most libertarians and most Republicans, is the former tend to be non-religious, and the latter have the highest levels of religiosity.
Indeed, if you look at the voters who voted for Gary Johnson in the last election, they have the least levels of religiosity of any other political grouping.
this was probably too long, sorry, but it is an important subject, and UA-cam is a global institution, and many people may be unaware of this.
Great comment please do more
Um.... Napoleon didn’t aid the American revolution. Are you really a professor?
Napoleon didn’t seize power until 1799, and was crowned emperor in 1804.
I didn’t necessarily disagree with everything said here, although I disagreed with a lot, but this just reminded me how goofy, ill-informed, and out of touch American economists tend to be. And that’s not a jab at you in particular Mark, you wouldn’t believe how many so called economists I’ve met who can’t even give you the proper definition of what socialism is. A lot of us younger folks Mark, even in rural southern states like mine, desire big changes to the system that will reflect the popular will of the country more. I know you have this assumption that if we do change things this much that it will follow exactly the guidelines of the constitution to create that change, but I think instead what we will eventually see happen is America is going to collapse from its own foolishness, and then after that we’ll have a (hopefully) peaceful revolution and implement a whole new constitution and system, it would probably be based on the old one though, but also incorporate influences from modern western constitutions. Just look at the way a lot of your students think, there’s a hunger for major change in this country, that will continue to grow as long as our government remains ineffective at solving the problems and improving everyone’s lives. People are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the system. Basically what happened to the Soviet Union is about to happen to us, no communism was necessary to bring us here, just good old neoliberals and conservatives like Mark helped destroy us.
I love how he put a star on Aleppo for the person at the 3rd podium
There's no reason why they can't also have a president with all the messiness of the electoral college AND aslo a proportional congress.
A major advantage of a proportional system, where coalitions take precedency, is that it doesn't generally allow you to lean left or right to much. It aligns the nations policy making to the centre generally.
exactly my thoughts. While this general election it wouldn't change anything, it would help the USA a lot in the long run. It's such a country of extremes and a political system that requires two extremes only makes it way worse.
It seems like this is the problem with FPTP systems and not with proportional systems. The two major parties run to the middle in order to appeal to the largest voting base possible.
A major advantage is that it rigs the system against certain political factions? Seems your supporting this system for all the wrong reasons.
I am from Australia and I think our system offers much more accurate representation of what people actually want... I don't think the "homogenising effect" where everything turns out the same is anything like you think it would be. What happens is one of the main two, needs one of the smaller parties to make a coalition. They do not have to compromise all that much, they just say we'll do one or two things you want if you stay out of our way.... and they do. That actually makes everybody happy. People usually vote for the smaller party because of one or two policies, if those policies get fulfilled the people backing that small party are happy regardless of what else happens. Having a ruling "party" with a leader makes so much more sense than having a president too...
Joseph Stott point taken! Party having a mandate seems more democratic; than a President.
As a Brazilian (Brazil has the proportional system) I have to point out some things:
for the problem you mentioned at 4:59, there's a simple solution: a second round. If the most voted candidate don't get absolute majority (50% + 1 of valid votes), there'll be a second round between the two strongest candidates. This allows the people who voted for the second and third strongest candidates to team up against the first strongest candidate.
The parties that lead the coalitions are not always the same. Each election has the potential to reduce or increase significantly the power of a party. And this is likely to happen if one of the most influential politicians change party.
Parties are not so loyal to coalitions as the video portrait, and legislators are not so loyal to their parties as well, specially the centrists parties. This is seen as a good thing here, there's even a saying "vote for the person, not for the party".
Parties that move freely between the government and oposition coalition are actually the majority. Thus they are called "centrão" (the big center). Those parties and politicians tend to be the most corrupt since their positioning is not loyal to ideology, but rather to favors.
Many parties change side between the government or the opposition depending on the topic. For example, the government's party is a conservative party, while the leftists parties form the opposition. There is a classical liberal party though (would be much like the american libertarian party) that usually sides with the conservatives, except for things like drugs for example, where their ideology says the opposite of conservatives'.
The two major parties comes from the definition that one group forms the government and the other are the opposition. In this case there is a mostly static divide between two sides for an election cycle, with the future depending on how well the government did in this time. If you look at Switzerland where all major parties are represented in the government an the coalitions are forming diffidently on each topic there is a change for multipel diverse political landscape, because the difference in the opinions on topics have an effect on the policies and the it is easier to find the right mix of opinions for a voter, who feels better represented in the end. The main problem is that the government is based on who get the a slight majority of votes and not that the government is representing most of the population and if the government just represents about half of the population the parties mostly try to change what the previous governments did and not bring that many new ideas. So my theory is if MMP is used and t a similar system is used to fill cabinet seats from the government the policies would be more stable and improving the country and not end up with two parties mostly trying to make the other look bad and only fighting in some parts of the country for votes. The focus would be on what values the parties represent and you wouldn't have two sets from which you can choose from but a variety of of collections which you could support. What if you want half of what the Republicans want and half of the Democrats, there would probably one party in my proposed system that represents you far better. So if you want more than two parties that are competing you would need to make the government based on votes and not majority as well.
Assuming the cabinet and government is made up of 25 positions (as the cabinet + president is at the moment) The party if the most votes could choose first which position they want and the loose 1/25th of all votes cast from there total vote count for the next round. The the party with the largest remaining vote count would be able to choose the next position, it might still be the same party. The loose the 1/25th of there votes and it goes around until all positions are filled. In the end most people would be represented by there party executive and legislative branch and most likely from the judiciary as well as the legislative is electing them. The stronger parties would be able to get the position they want to and the weaker one would still be able to get one, even if it is not their favorite one.
I am from the Netherlands. Our proportional system makes it so that parties constantly have to innovate and keep up, providing maximal quality due to fierce competition. If a party makes major missteps, they simply suffer a major electoral defeat.
I feel that the premise of this video is somewhat misguided. The elections for the House of Representatives are part of the Congressional elections (i.e. elections for the legislative branch of government) and are a separate election in their own right from the Presidential one (the executive branch). While it would also be interesting to see what the composition of Congress (including the Senate) would have been under a proportional system, it would theoretically be entirely possible for the Democrats to have had control of Congress while Trump was elected President.
A better approach would have been to see what would have happened had the Electoral College votes for each state been allocated proportionally to each of the candidates, rather than the current . For example, in a state with 10 electoral votes, let's say that Clinton won 60% of the vote and Trump won the other 40% - that would give Clinton six votes and Trump four. If you did that for each of the 50 states based on the 2016 results, I think you'd get a picture of what would have happened under a proportional system for the Presidential election.
The congressional elections would be crucial for determining the president's budget and taxes to match, the approval of the president's nominees and treaties, what is included in legislation and who has the power to block veto overrides, and the review and investigation of the executive branch, including impeachment and who might have the power to block such.
Congressional elections would also provide a large platform for those who want to become president. Trump didn't hold elective office before, but most candidates have served in congress, including Trump's vice president, both Clinton and Sanders, Obama and Clinton in the 2007 primary, McCain in 2008, Paul Ryan for VP in 2012, and others. The mayors of a couple cities like New York and the governors of some states are also platforms for becoming the nominee, but most of those who become the governor or mayor in those cities tend to get their state in the state or municipal legislature or council as well, which in a proportional system will introduce a lot of parties into the mix.
You can't have a proportional system choose a president given that proportionality inherently needs a multi member winner like 100 senators, but you can use a ranked or runoff ballot to elect the president in a direct election without the electoral college. Say that there are 5 candidates proposed, one from Trump's party, one from the Tea Party/Republican coalition, one from the Libertarians, one from the Democratic Party, and one from the Sanders/Greens coalition. If none of them get a majority of the votes in the election, they would go to a runoff perhaps a couple weeks to a month later with the top two competing. The same would be true of state executives like governors, attorneys general, etc, local executives like mayors, and other singular offices like many judges in the US.
The primaries for each of these bodies would also become quite interesting. The precise mechanism will play a vital role, for example if the US used a mixed member proportional system and a Baden Wuerttemburg system for distributing the seats, there wouldn't be a party list and all the primaries for legislative candidates will be facing off in what is likely to be a runoff or ranked ballot to become the local nominee for their party, and in the general election for their district, they may face a runoff or ranked ballot among many different parties for the local seat if nobody has a majority, with even the candidates who aren't likely to win campaigning as hard as they can in even what might be hopeless districts so that they increase their chance of being chosen for the proportional seats.
This would also be important when it comes to the legislative management themselves. The party caucuses in each legislative body elect their crucial officials. The presidents pro tempore, more important at a state level and often have powers similar to the speaker, as well as the actual speaker, are elected by all the members of the legislature or congress, and so in a proportional system, it's quite likely that no one party will be able to nominate a speaker or president pro tempore on their own, so they will require exhaustive balloting or a runoff or a ranked ballot to elect them, and may well have more motions to declare the chair vacant and choose another presiding officer if the current one is bad at their role. The party caucuses individually elect, usually by secret ballot in a party room vote, their floor leader and party whip, and often their other important officers like their policy chair. A secret ballot could also be used to put members of the party on the committees to which they are proportionally allocated (if you have 20% of the members of the legislative house and a committee has 35 members, your party is entitled to 7 seats on the committee), and they'd have to elect a chair, likely through exhaustive balloting and maybe a secret ballot.
If there are positions of majority or minority leader, in addition to the floor leaders of each party, they will be answering to a multi party coalition, and so they have to keep happy quite different parties. Could be interesting to see what that ends up doing.
While the smaller parties are certain to be absorbed into the sphere of the larger parties, it is better to have a proportional system, because now the smaller parties can influence the larger ones and, like this people can get more say in the running of their country.
Bernie would get more votes from Democrats and a lot of tea party voters would go Trump
I think that if the GOP establishment and Trump were in separate parties, the GOP establishment likely would support Clinton over Trump, because their core, fiscal conservative supporters wouldn't have to support Trump and oppose Clinton purely out of partisan loyalty. So in this scenario, with this vote distribution, I'd actually put my money on a Clinton-led "grand coalition" of the Democrats, Progressives, and Republicans. How stable this coalition would be, especially between the Progressives and the Republicans, is another story...
Jacob, I agree with you in many ways, they fail to mention the moderates/independents who represent the majority these days. The funny thing is that 2/3rds of Americans agree with Bernies positions on the issues, they just don't like the word "socialism"...
Left leaning democrats have more in common with the tea party than moderate democrats or republicans.
Your last minute summed it up well. As an Australian who lives with proportional representation, be very careful what you ask for. The greens side with the centre left, and the conservatives with the centre right. The problem is that micro parties like the greens get over represented and so the major parties have to pander to their lunatic ideas.
The Greens are underrepresented in the House of Representatives compared to the percentage of the vote they receive. Labor and Liberal don't pander to their 'lunatic ideas', clearly many people like the Greens and thus Labor and Liberal adopt their ideas to try to attract more voters.
Additionally, the influence of the Greens on the major parties, in terms of environmental policy, is quite weak, especially at the Commonwealth level. Neither major party has been particularly devoted to comprehensive climate change action due to the importance of coal mining to the economy and as an attempt to keep the many voters who rely on these activities.
Jordan Nedosyko - @ Thanks for your reply. I think you may have missed my point though.
You are correct when you say that Greens are under-represented in terms of SEATS in the house of reps - eg in 2019 they got 10% of the national vote, but only got 1 seat = less than 1% seat representation of the 151 seats. Though a similar case could be mounted for the United Aus Party and One Nation - each of those parties got 3% of the national vote, but NO seat representation.
My point was not SEAT representation, rather I was lamenting that one of the consequences of the senate proportional / house preferential system is that it can result in unintended IDEA representation / heavily influence ideas amongst informal coalitions (compared to a First Past the Post system say), which you seem to agree with and explain very well in your reply.
For example, in 2019, Labour got 33% of the national vote but obtained 68 house seats = 45% of the seat. And as you eluded to, the Greens got 10% of the vote but obtained only 1 seat. Does anyone dispute that the Greens don’t influence Labor party policies (beyond environmental issues)? In theory and in practice we have seen the Labour-Greens ‘coalition’ heavily influenced by the Green mandate despite their poor seat allocation, because the Greens constitute a quarter of their ‘coalition’.
At the end of the day, I guess it comes down to which electoral system one prefers, taking into consideration all the advantages and disadvantages each system offers. I think I know where you sit, and I think you know where I sit. Appreciate your thoughtful reply.
green party is so underrated
A proportional system would allow for minor parties to remain as political parties instead of being absorbed.
Ranked/Instant run-off would also be miles better than the abomination that is first-past-the-post even without proportional representation.
Wyoming has 6x the amount of votes (per capita) compared to NY
This along with an uncapping of the number of house seats would be ideal.
One of the greatest pros for the proportional system is that it shift the focus from chosing a candidate to chosing a party. Since both US parties are so big and constantly absorbs smaller parties it results in candiadates needing to take a stance on where they are on the political scale. Comming from a proportional system myself i can say that we focus more on the parties ideas and not on the leaders personal abilities or charm because we are not chosing a leader, we are chosing a party to lead.
Am I first? I just want the certificate.
So here goes:
First!
Four seconds late, I'm afraid.
Ah well. Now for the video.
by youtubes newest to oldest order you are first
Actually, when I order the comments my time you are indeed first, your comment is timestamped 57 s ago and Barrys is timestamped only 45s ago. I go with what's on my screen, I'll make you your certificate.
If you want a twitter mention etc ...
splitting up the parties is where you went wrong. the republicans haven't won the popular vote in the last 6 elections, your system artificially gives them more representation
No, our system was set up to have the president elected by the consent of the states, it just happens to favor Republicans more. The electoral college was invented before the Republican party even existed.
Make it 7
My Biggest problem with this video was the use of the primaries to get the vote totals and the the proportions. I think it worked well for the new party breakdown, however on a national scale I don't know.
I dont think the party breakdown is right at all. we're assuming people will vote the same when they arent incentivised to vote for a large candidate anymore. we would gain at the very least a healthy fascist party and a single seat leftist party. we would also probably have a lot of single issue parties. the weed party is a given imo.
@@personeater747 I think we would have 4 parties emerge, the progressive, democrat, republican, tea party, to use the current labels, maybe the libertarian and green would be absorbed, I doubt the US would end up like the Dutch with single issue parties, maybe something like Canada or the UK since we know their system, I think a lot of moderate voters are trapped by the two parties and would want another choice
@@danielzhang1916 I think our disagreement stems from our different political background. I assume you want an even more centrist party, from your comment. Im a communist. I want a chance to get radicals into government. I see the subset of people like me, who would vote for an extremist party if given the chance. you see the people like you who would want an even more status quo centrist party.
@@personeater747 I was actually talking about the main possibilities, a communist party could form but it would probably be small, and might be absorbed or replaced by another left-wing party, it wouldn't be anything like Die Linke in Germany
A better way to understand the difference between the Dutch and U.S. systems is to think in terms of a parliamentary system vesus a presidential system. Someone like Trump could never become a factor in a parliamentary system. A parliamentary politician starts off as a backbencher, moves up to the cabinet, and finally runs for prime minister.
Trump was at one time a Ross Perot centerist. He supported Hillary against Obama in 2008. He won the Republican nomination in 2016 thanks to CNN's obsessive coverage of him in the primaries. (CNN boss Jeff Zucker had been producer of Celebrity Apprentice.) After the nomination, Trump's first priority was not to win the presidency, but to drain the money in his campaign accounts off to his own companies. This was a variation on the "bankrupcy to riches" strategy that had worked for him with his casinos. In other words, the campaign had been intended as a scam, just like Trump University.
About a month before the election, the Mercers came to Trump and offered to fund and reboot the campaign. This time, Reince Priebus at the RNC would be overseeing the accounts while Kellyanne Conway would teach Trump how to act more like a politician. The Mercers had backed Ted Cruz in the primaries. In the video's alternative parliamentary America, Cruz would still be in the race at this point. So the Mercers and conservative voters would persumably stick with him. As for Trump, he would have dropped out after he finished paying the campaign money to himself. As the Senate's bad boy, Cruz himself would be an impossible nominee in a parliamentary system. Perhaps someone more like Rubio or Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker would have ended up as president.
0:12 That animation got the result wrong. Just like le polls.
The vote for president is a necessarily single-winner voting system. A proportional system isn't an option.
They could use a proportional system for the House of Representatives and their Senate.
This is an interesting exercise, but it should not be applied to the vote for president in the US. Perhaps you mention this (I'm only 3:30 in so far), but it's an important point.
For the presidency, the best option they could go with would be to switch to IRV, since that is as good as you can get in a single-winner system.
I think I even said in my Q&A video that for single winner situations like a presidency I think IRV is probably the best system.
If I were to actually suggest a new system for the USA I would go with IRV for president, either this type of proportional representation or MMP for the House of Representatives, and maybe rather than changing the electoral system of the senate I'd seek to simply limit its powers so it would be a bit more like the House of Lords (but then again my home country doesn't have an upper house at all).
I bet the minor parties would grow much bigger if you had this system in USA!
Aren't you describing a parliamentarian system, not proportional representation? The US could have proportional representation in the legislature (likely just the lower house) and select a president as we already do.
Rand/Ron Paul Supporters might not all be voting for Johnson, but those who aren't probably would fall under the Libertarian Coalition.
Most likely. A lot of college kids too. No doubt that the actual adoption of this system would alter voter behavior
Ron Denenea Rand is more republican that Libertarian. Ron is full on Libertarian.
I agree. What I was saying is that most Rand-ites would be more likely to fall in the Libertarian Coalition than in the Republican coalition. It is hard to tell, because in his state he gets lots of republican support, and a national election he might not be as palatable to neocons, because he is a libertarian Republican.
Ron and Rand Paul supports would more likely vote for Trump as they share the same type of views on especially foreign policy.
@@rickenman9844 How do the Paul's have closer foreign policy to Trump than Libertarians? Trump is a Neocon warmonger, and The Paul's are non-interventionist.
Does anyone outside of politicians NOT want proportional representation? We've been pushing for this in Canada for years (though probably not a pure version, as there are inherent downsides).
for the presidency, its contraversial. I think most republicans would oppose proportional rep here, it won them bush and trump. democrats of course would support it as hard as they can, it lost them al gore and hillary. for congress and the senate though, I think proportional rep would poll far more conservative, so democrats should rather oppose there, and republicans rather support.
Compulsory voting, preference voting and proportional representation. Works well in Australia.
It does
I doubt Americans will ever accept compulsory voting (although Automatic Enrolment is making headway), but the US system is deliberately designed to discourage participation. Part of that can be fixed by simply making voting easier, as several States are now doing with postal voting options. I'm guessing you can get 80% of the way there just by not making people line up in the sun for three hours, and as a bonus, voters can read up on candidates if they wish from the comfort of their lounge chair as they fill the ballot out.
Oh, and the US needs a better paper trail for the ballots. Hanging Chads, my fucking god America.
@@TheOneWhoMightBe This is also something the Netherlands excels at. I've voted in six elections on five occasions and even despite elections always being held on weekdays I've never had any issue voting. I've got all day from early morning till halfway through the evening and I can vote anywhere in my home municipality and I've never had to wait more than a couple minutes. Line too long, just come back later or find another place. For all these elections I lived immediately across the street from a polling place but I always voted at a place across town I'd pass several more on my way to.
It's quite funny watching this after trump both won and lost an election
I think a proportional system has its problems. But Winner Take All is bad too.
So I have a few suggestions:
- Alternative Vote
- Single Transferrable Vote
- Two-round runoff system
Alternative vote is the easiest to implement. Just say you can rank the candidates.
Single Transferrable Vote is slightly harder to implement. It requires there being several fairly large parties, but two very popular ones, and combining voting ranges.
Two-round runoff requires two elections. And yet again, you need more than 3 decently sized parties to do that.
The main reason proportional is bad is that you want local representation. Ideally, you want your representatives to be in touch with the people they represent (I know it never works like that). If you have proportional, you could have people from the establishment of each political movement, located near the nation's capital to take the seats, which effectively ignores the entire populations votes.
i think proportional representation would be good for the us if it was handled state by state rather than based on the national popular vote, eg pennsylvania’s 18 seats could be divied up based on the proportion each party got within that state
and since its state by state, each state could choose whether or not it wanted to run its elections that way, others may choose to keep single-winner districts or have multi-winner districts under stv or any combination they’d like (my state of michigan has one main population center and the rest of the state is pretty rural so maybe it could have stv or proportional for metro detroit and have single member districts for the rural areas or whatever)
im also pretty sure all of this is already possible without any federal legislation or constitutional amendments and id love to see some states try out some new electoral systems
As a New Zealander, I'm happy with MMP. I'm glad we don't have a system like that of the United States
It’s very fitting how you made the “progressive party” logo arrow actually go in the wrong direction.
Dear USA - Just switch to ranked choice voting and things will improve a lot. (We have used it for 100 years.) - Regards Australia.
The US has to be the least democratic western country I know and it's so painful to watch
We in italy have a proportional system and a 3 party system
my favorite kiwi is back!
:D
Soliloquy NAIL AND GEAR BEST FLAG
Soliloquy NAIL AND GEAR BEST FLAG
If the US ever adopted PR it would likely be STV rather than a rigidly proportional system like this.
the turnout for the libertarian primaries wasn't low, we just don't believe in using tax funded systems to preform a function of a private entity such as a political party, and thus had primaries in only a handful of states
We never said anything about why their numbers were low, and we felt it was more interesting boosting their numbers a bit in the analysis, especially as under a proportional system you might expect these parties to do better than they do now.
Here's a Frenchie's point of view.
I think a proportional system could be a good idea for American politics, regarding the current rotting of debates in this country.
But proportional voting also reminds me of what were the most ungovernable systems France has ever seen : the 3rd and 4th Republic, where governments could rise and fall in the span of a week, because coalitions were incredibly unstable.
Then, maybe this situation arose because of our "revolutionary" mindset, and it would cause no problem in other places. Still, I'm very cautious regarding proportional voting, knowing what it has brought to my country in the past.
But it never brought the dictatorship of the minority over the majority like it is now in the USA and the UK
It's so worth it! Even if the Green Party (my fav) never won an election, they would still be influential in making decisions and would get my vote. Coalitions are better than just outright stamping out the competition, Green Party and Libertarian Party members can't speak on the floor of the house if they can't get elected. It's a Miracle that Bernie Sanders has done what he has done.
the idea of coalitions is sort of antiquated. using non-partisan rules where the parties dont form governments should be tried.
people can handle more than two choices but these choices can blur in to each other
Hello Internet!
Hi there youtube
Soliloquy I saw a nail and gear so i have to say it........VIVA LA FLAGGY FLAG
TRAITOR!
+Soliloquy It was all rigged from the start! Do you really thing Sir Brady " Hard as nails, posh as pillows" Haran and CGP Grey the queen of spades are democratic. It's a totalitarian dictatorship! FLAGGY Flag stand for freedom, democracy and net neutrality!
You're taking to a nail and gear voter here my friend, but grey does need to be king in these situations ua-cam.com/video/5b7qGGA65Ok/v-deo.htmlm
What if the People's Party, the Greens, the Libertarian Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and all minor parties were to announce, "We will be separate parties again in the future, but until we get Approval Voting in every State, we are going under the banner of the People's Party. We ask everyone to join our parties and get on our mailing lists if you have affinity for our ideologies at all, but also help organize the People's Party and vote for People's-Party candidates until we have won Approval Voting. The Americans have everything to gain and nothing to lose by following this plan. It is the shortest and least violent path to the defeat of corporate rule."
You do realise countries like Germany have a presidant?
That's not true. There is only one president in the entire world and that is Queen Elizabeth III.
Germany's presidont is a puppet state of Jupiter. German politics are as staged as the moon landing.
I like your style :)
We realize it. Why bring it up?
Presidents in Parliamentary systems are very different than their (US) American counterpart.
And Elvis was Hitlers son
Germany has a president but not the head of state as the Chancellor is both the head of state and government.
The last statement is simply not true. In the Netherlands there are always more than 2 dominating parties. Here is a list of parties with their seats, not two big parties
20 PVV extreme right
32 VVD conservative liberals
19 Cda Christians
19 D66 left liberals
14 groen links left green
14 Sp former communists
9 PvdA. socialists
Proportional representation sounds better in theory, but in practice it hands way to much power to small, special interest parties. Take Norway for instance, where the current government is living on the mercy of one of the "barely-made-it-into-parliament"-parties, causing weak, compromised and inconsistent policies.
There's also a problem when you have a three-way split parliament, where no one is willing to cooperate to form a majority. In Sweden for example, you ended up with the absurd situation in 2014 of every single party except Sweden Democratics(national conservatives) supported any government not including Sweden Democrats just to avoid giving them any "kingmaker"-powers.
And let's not kid ourselves, in the end democracy is about who can exceed the most "soft" information control. Since the amount of information available nowadays is so vast that it's inconvenient for the regular voter to stay up-to-date, it's whoever holds sway in the mainstream media and can reach the most people with information filtered through their point of view that will win the elections.
didnt trump just disprove your last paragraph
Deus Vult 3rd paragraph too
You can solve the 'the Chancellor doesn't last for 6 months because he is reliant on the Saxonian Motorcycle Riders' Party to avoid a vote of no confidence' by requiring a ⅔ constructive vote of no confidence (really of MPs have to prefer THIS CABINET over the CURRENT CABINET). This is what Germany did. That's your first point.
Yeah sure, but let's not call it a "prime minister".
There are countries with a proportional system and don't have a parliamentary or semi presidential system. Argentina is an example, which also happens to be a federal state divided into provinces. Their congress has a proportional system and a two round system for the president.
@@robertjarman3703 k cool, but that's not what I'm talking about. I think you replied to the wrong person.
We in Canada very briefly had 3 major political parties, so 2 isn't inevitable. And yes, I'm using the past-tense since the federal NDPs are back to being a small player after their enormous loss of ground last election.
The NDP by no means is a small player, they are the so called "king maker". We were expecting a liberal minority but the fear of another Harper government lead many NDP voters and even Conservatives to vote Liberal. Next election, we might see a liberal minority, with an NDP coalition.
Vote for Trudo was a mistake, same for Notley in AB.
Trudeau doesn't want proportional. He wants preferential ballots. In a preferential system people put a backup option. Conveniently the backup option of both other parties tends to be the Liberal party. What Trudeau really wants is to rule forever.
cattraknoff The back up tends to be NDP, at least that seems to be the case in bc.
Canadians have a long history of flip flopping between Cons and libs.
A conservative is not likely to vote socialist (NDP), nor is a socialist likely to vote conservative. The most moderate supporters of either might, but for people who actually believe in conservative principles, they might vote liberal but they would probably not vote NDP.
Given that when polled about actual policies the American people actively support significantly more left wing policies than the parties they vote for. For example when asked around 70% of the population support nationalised healthcare, including around 45% of republican voters. A little over 50% support police reform. If given a electoral system less tied up with us versus them tribalism, one that lets people vote for candidates with policies they like rather than voting to keep out the scary boogeyman from the other side, the whole balance of US politics could change dramatically
Nice video! But as a Libertarian, that would be a tough position for me. Me, as well as many other Libertarians would never support either Trump or Hillary. Also with the libertarians, they share a lot of views with the Republicans, mainly on fiscal issues, and social views generally with Democrats.
you know the worst thing that could happen to a libertarian... is to win the election then find out their stuff don't work and the country go down in anarchy. :P
Serious demands and compromises to both parties' platforms would have to be made for the Libertarian party to support either coalition, but with our party in position of "king maker" we would be in a position to make them.
Joshua Kravatz with what you just said, it might be possible that the libertarians might stick to themselves, making the greens the king makers, or worse case scenario for you guys, the party collapse and split.
If you break down the proposal one by one, you would realized how much impact the Libertarian and the Green party would make in this new systems.
And mind you, the main reason why your party doesn't get much votes is because people THINK voting for you guys is useless in 2 party system. That's why the moderate republicans and the moderate democrats are forced to vote for the 2 major party instead of voting for the libertarian party.
The same reason why Bernie sanders supporters are forced to vote democrats are because they know their votes for the green party would disappear on thin air.
People would support the libertarian and the green party if they knew their voice would be heard regardless if those 2 minor parties win or not.
Have the Libertarian party vote for Republican budgets and Democrat other laws then when it comes to pressing buttons in the Congress then. Minority governments exist in most parliamentary systems.
WRONG. I really liked the video until you said that Germany has a Two-Party system which is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!! (Seriously our problem is that there are TOO MANY parties to form a good coalition)
I resent how poorly I did.
as the newest party in the council of youtube education I think you performed admirably, I'm sure your party will grow after your first term.
I feel like your characterization of trump as prime minister and clinton as leader of the opposition here is flawed. Youve also neglected the senate completely.
The closest equivalents to the prime minister in the us house would be the speaker of the house and the minority leader. The house is the junior legislative body so the title fits better for the senate leader.
In the US the president is responsible for being the head of state, commander in chief, chief diplomat etc. The leader of the legislation (what parliamentary systems call a prime minister) are the majority leaders in congress, so they would be responsible for forming the governing coalition.
The prime minister equivalent would therefore be mitch mcconnell and chuck shumer as opposition leader
I think that what you proposed would actually be beneficial and might (key word is might) actually help to reduce the political tension on some levels in the United States. It's rather annoying as well as sad that many have gotten to a point where the discussion of ideas is nearly impossible because if you are heard supporting an idea backed by the democratic party then you're labeled a communist or socialist. In contrast, if you are heard supporting an idea that is backed by the republican party then you risk being labeled as a Nazi or some other trigger word that would no doubt be used by the progressive left. Implementing such a system (though I doubt it will ever happen) would help to eliminate at least to some extent, the fear mongering that both parties currently use as a means of getting and maintaining power. For example, many said that if you voted for Trump or didn't vote for Hillary, then YOU would be responsible for any "fascist" thing that Trump would supposedly do. To better put it into context, when Trump signed the executive order on the travel ban, many from the progressive left claimed and still say that if you supported the move then you were islamaphobic, xenophobic, and a Nazi. While it shouldn't be ignored that racism still exists, it should not also be ignored that extremists groups such as ISIS and Alqueda are a major problem in the middle east. I like to compare the travel ban to protecting ones home. Yes, I do want to help those that have unfortunately been misplaced by the conflict in Syria but at the same time, I am also fully aware that some individuals have used Europe's open boarder policy as a means to sneak jihadist into Germany, France, Sweden, and the U.K. and while the jihadist may be low in numbers compared to the actual number of true refugees, I do not want anyone in my family getting killed by some Allah Akbar screaming extremist. On a similar note, I want to help those in my area that are homeless and truly in need. Unfortunately, my area has seen an increase with individuals pandering for money on the side of the freeway claiming to be victims of cruel circumstance and yet, those very same "people" are not crippled, are not looking for work, are not without food, and some have even been seen in nice vehicles. Obviously I want to help those that are legitimately in need but I DO NOT want to give to some miserable asswipe that isn't suffering and just wants a free handout. Yet, some people have such bleeding hearts that if you had every bit of evidence that a panhandler wasn't truly in need and was scamming people, no doubt those bleeding hearts would accuse you of being "Ungodly" or "unsympathetic" or might even go as far as to say "What would Jesus do".
It's not completely true that in the Netherlands we have 2 big parties. It is true that we had 3 big parties (labour, conservatives(sort of) and the Christian democrats), but since the 2000s that has been watering down and now we have 6 parties with a reasonable amount of seats.
I'd argue that a Proportional System would be better for the US because it would likely increase voter turnout, as people could form more parties that better represent their ideals rather then forcing them to vote for the lesser of two evils. With the 2016 election having such a low turnout, I think a proportional system would be quite different then that, as you'd have a lot more people less afraid to vote out of the spoiler effort, as well as a lot more people having something to vote for instead of against.
Although Brazil is a democratic republic with a president, like the US, it uses a similar proportional representantion. Do a video about it.
There’s a difference between proportional representation in the lower chamber of a legislative branch and a parliamentary system. They are not mutually inclusive.
There is a big disadvantage to this system. The coalition can start to break down, meaning the agreement associated with it has to either be renegotiated or new elections have to be held. And in the Dutch system, it often does. There are only 7ish coalitions that didn’t break down.
The Dutch system has specifics that are not ideal. In particular, they do something rather unusual for PR systems, they have a single nationwide constituency. Most PR systems have districts closer to home, between 5 and 18 members of parliament per district, or in the case of more individualized systems such as single transferable vote, 3-5 members per district. The Dutch system is very concentrated in the nation as a whole, which is very proportional but also pretty weak at keeping good coalitions.
Party agreements can come in all shapes and sizes, but here is one rule I would suggest using for this purpose: Require that party agreements must be ratified by a majority of the party members, much like the way a primary works in the US, parties could have their at large systems controlled more capably by their ordinary members. And importantly, require that breaking such a deal also requires their ordinary members to pull out, which is something that their members will not want to do if it would lead to instability or a fresh election which could threaten what benefits they have already negotiated, and makes them look like fools who can't be trusted later.
Another mechanism is the German and Spanish model where no confidence votes require that a substitute chancellor be proposed and approved of by a majority of the legislature at the same time as the no confidence motion is approved. In Germany in particular, they have a few steps in the event that a coalition is hard to negotiate, but on the final nuclear option, the Bundestag votes on all proposed chancellors, and if nobody has a majority, the chancellor with the largest number of votes, even if not a majority, is presented to the president who decides as an independent thinker rather than as a ceremonial head of state whether to appoint them chancellor or to call new elections, and combined with the fact that a different chancellor needs a majority of the Bundestag to approve of them at the same time they vote against the present one, that makes Germany rather more stable.
Oh, and add in that in the English speaking world where proportional systems are used, IE New Zealand and Ireland, the places that do use proportional representation tend to use confidence deals more often than many on the continent, most of that tends to use true coalitions where they vote almost always as a single block and have cabinets with members from many parties, which in confidence deals, does not happen, they only support the governing party/parties/independents on confidence, budgetary motions, and a few specific concessions and specific ideas, usually with no cabinet ministers and without the requirement to vote as a block on any other issue. This gives a much higher level of flexibility than most continental systems have. A few have confidence deals as well as coalitions, but it's not nearly as common.
This video also made the mistake of conflating proportional systems and parliamentary systems, which is not the same thing. Brazil still has an independently chosen executive which cannot be removed in confidence motions yet it has a proportional system for their Congress, while the UK and Canada have the first past the post system like the US but also have a parliamentary system. The US probably wouldn't adopt a parliamentary system even if it were to adopt a proportional system, it would just be too big of a constitutional change.
The Netherlands doesn't have 2 national parties anymore.
In propotionate Systems, minor parties don't move around one major party. The liberals in germany worked in their early days with the SPD and now with the other major party. The greens actually work with SPD and CDU. Same in UK, Liberals worked with Labour but also with the conversatives.
The problem with this idea is that the House seats are awarded to each state by population.
It's still possible to allocate them proportionally. In Switzerland, the largest canton, with the same federative system as the US, has 35 members of the national parliament (out of 200), and the smallest 6 cantons just have one each.
The US usually has fewer members per state, and yet the largest states would have many members at large, necessitating party lists which is not a good thing in my opinion if you can avoid it. Single transferable vote is also proportional yet it scales very well and the states with more than 9 members in the House can subdivide themselves into districts efficiently.
Now, the Netherlands doesn't really have two major parties. The election screwd everything up
It would be great if the people who can't count past 2 decided not to vote.
Rubio would be with the Tea party not the establishment. Cruz would have the highest portion of the Center-Right
Bernies faction on the left would have the majority of the left. Nice try
This was really informative and I wish I didn't have to choose between the current candidates. I wish we had Denmark's system over here.
I like how this is from 2016 but you still used Helen Clark as the face of the Labour party, even though she left after the 2008 elections.
6:50 yes, because it wouldn't always be the same.
You could look at all previous elections and say "made no difference".
BUT
That's because candidates campaigned on a winner take all system.
all the votes that didn't go to the main 2 are the people smart enough to handle 3
At 6:29 you put Gordon Brown and Theresa may as the two main party leaders in the UK. At the point of this video's making, the Leader of the Labour Party would have been Jeremy Corbyn, not Gordon Brown.
sure, coalitions partially merge with the biggest party, but how often is a whole branch of an American Party switched from Republican to Democratic party? A coalition is by definition a temorary agreement, rather then an ideological bound.
Proportional system is a dishonest way to vote. Partys do deals under cover. Voting are about morals, agenda and qualifications.
This system uses party list proportional, but that is not required. There are a couple significant proportional systems that do not use parties, such as single transferable vote (STV). In Ireland, where they do indeed use STV, 25/158 members of the lower house and 15/60 members of the senate are independents. That is far better than the US currently does. You can apply the same to the party primaries too, and make them open primaries, which reduces the influence of party insiders. Add in a system of recall elections and candidates are far more tied to their district than they are today.
I would also suggest doing the same for the Senate. Make it so that each state doesn't have 2 senators elected for a 6 year term, make it say 6 senators, three of them elected for a four year term in every second year. Expand the size of the House of Representatives too, to match the population, at least 550, maybe up to 850. Add in recall systems and the senators become more loyal to their state than party.
By changing the primaries to be open like this, allowing for independents, the use of a type of voting system that empowers those who can create broader coalitions of voters rather than narrow partisans, larger districts that are harder to gerrymander (and you can use an independent commission to draw district lines so as to limit this even more), it becomes less valuable to be an uberloyalist to your party and party voters and more valuable to be able to create broader consensuses.
This type of proportional system can also be used to bypass parties in the organization of congress itself. Imagine that each House committee has say 31 members on it. Each member of the House can be given a ballot and they can rank themselves in the order they want them to get on the committee, and use single transferable vote in the counting. This completely bypasses the parties in putting members on committees. And from there, the committee chairs can be elected with a ranked ballot from among them, ending the power of the majority/minority leaders and speakers to influence this process. If a committee has a subcommittee of say 9 members, the 31 members of the general committee can use the same ranked ballot to put their members on the subcommittee, bypassing the chair and party. The agenda of the Congress could be set by an agenda committee in each legislative chamber to be elected the same way, and same with the rules committee, which governs the debate, and another one to put bills to the relevant committees, bypassing the majority/minority leaders and speaker. The speaker and the president pro tempore of the senate can also be chosen in a ranked ballot like this, bypassing the role of parties in the selection of presiding officers.
It would also be worth changing some of the other rules like to require that presidents need the consent of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate to ratify their cabinet and approving requests from the president to remove cabinet members, require a 2/3 vote in both houses for judicial nominations to be appointed as well as the nominees for certain types of other proposals like inspector generals, the FBI, security services and military, and independent commissions. The veto can be changed to have say a 3/5 vote not a 2/3 vote, making it more likely that such a supermajority will exist and making it close enough that it is usually worth the effort to make consensuses rather than bend to the will of the president.
This would probably make the congress less partisan, not more.
With more than 2 parties you can control as citizen the other parties by electing the smaller ones because in that way the to bigger ones will see to witch way the citizens are like to move.
In Germany the left Party once made their best Voting result 3 times in a row, after that the two major parties started to leaned a bit left until the AfD with it’s right wing economy liberalism started to gain grew. So the extremes on both sides are steering the bigger parties.
Is it possible for the Libertarians to split into Republican and Democratic leaning factions?
as possible as a party called the Libertarians splitting off from the Republicans, which happened.
Alright. Have you been thinking of any similar thought experiments like this one for American politics?
In Germany its a three to four parties System nowadays
CDU (conservative)
SPD (labour)
Die Grünen (greens/envirement)
[AFD (Very conservative, a bit like Trump, far right]
@al rode they had under 5% Aka they are out.