Topic: Democrats & Debt (Read 5881 times)

It is even possible to get on the list on your own (without a party). In that way the person gets a list number instead of a party name. Another thing is that after voting often remaining seats are left, which are given to the parties depending on the remaining unfilled votes. Sometimes 2 parties cooperate and link their lists in such way that one of the two parties would get the seat instead of one of the larger parties.

This type of election is for the Parliament and Cabinet. For the Senate we choose indirectly through voting for the province council. They often contain parties that are not in the Parliament and can give sometimes interesting situations (the Cabinet needs a majority in the Senate to pass a law or plans). We had the elections for the provinces recently and the Cabinet wasn't able to get a majority with the ruling parties. Despite the fact that they got a vote from a specific party from one of the provinces about a very controversial (for that province) agreement between the Netherlands and Belgium. In the end they also had to make agreements with a very conservative right-winged Christian party to get some things passed through the Senate (where a large part of the country got a WTF? moment).

That is fascinating. Thank you for the insight.

In the Netherlands it depends per party how candidates are placed on the voting lists. Normally everybody who wants can sign up to be on the list for that party, the chair of the fraction is often number one on the list and other current MPs follow, new people are added after that. During voting you vote for a person, normally the first on the list. If the seat is in the vote overflows to the next person. However if someone gets more votes then the person in front of that person he/she gets the seat (even if the party doesn't like it). In that case there are 3 options: the person can keep the seat, the party asks the person to give the seat away and in that case the person can choose to do it or not, or the person decides to become an independent MP (this is also the case if the person is thrown out of the party).
After elections the largest party gets the initiative to form a coalition, where the number 1 becomes the Prime Minister and ideally you want to have more then 50% of the seats in the parliament, although that isn't required. Our current Cabinet contains 2 parties, supported by a 3rd. That in most cases give >50% support.

In America we have a primary system so you can vote for who the party candidate will be in the final election (this goes for almost all elective offices.) To my knowledge, I am not aware that such a thing exists in parliaments. Doesn't the party itself choose who the MP candidates will be? So in my mind, you really are voting for the party instead of the individual, as candidates are unlikely to be far off from party policy, whereas here you could potentially choose a republican to be the democratic nominee in a Congressional race. There are some pros and and cons to both systems, I guess it just depends on your preference.

Ah, I thought you meant people could only vote for a party, not individual MP. Yes, the largest party delivers the Prime Minister.

Yes, all other elective offices you vote for individuals and there is a plurality system. Of course you vote for the two Senators for your state (which is on an interval, so some states, such as mine, have both a Democrat and Republican Senator.) In some ways it is more direct because there is not an electoral college, but the electoral college rarely gets in the way of things really.

I was not aware you could split your vote in a parliamentary system. It was my understanding that you voted for your party MP and whichever party holds the majority got the Prime Minister, such that the Prime Minister always had the majority of the legislature. Unlike here where we can have a Democratic President and a Republican legislature (and vice-versa.)

Thank you for the explanation. The parliamentary system also allows to vote for individuals, but not many people do it. Works voting for other governmental bodies (senate?) work the same as for the president elections?  Or is that more direct?

Because the election system (in the States) is based on plurality instead of majority and we have an electoral college system independent of the results of Congress. This makes voting for 3rd parties, especially on the national level, kind of useless. Very simplified example: In 2000 there were the two major candidates: Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. There was also a more liberal than Al Gore independent name Ralph Nader. In Florida, the state that basically decided the outcome of that close election, it was decided (kind of) that George W. Bush won the election there. However, there were more votes for Al Gore + Ralph Nader combined. So people like to blame Ralph Nader and his voters for making Al Gore lose to Bush. If there was a majority system, this would not be a problem and you could vote more confidently for a 3rd party candidate.

Also, despite the assumption that because we only have two major parties they must have more power, the parties on both sides really are very broad coalitions. Also I like the ability to split your vote for the different offices (so you can choose the individual) as opposed to the parliamentary system of voting for a party (even though that allows for a wider range of parties.)

I'm voting to re-elect Thomas Jefferson (who is still eligible to serve a second term)

Looking at wikipedia it seems the USA has more parties then the two big ones. Why not pick one of those and convince like-minded people to vote for them as well?

Voting grants the illusion of legitimacy to this whole fucked up system of coercion/control.  If you feel the need to vote, why not vote for the underdog?

OP is really funny 

I went to the Republican Leadership Conference this year...and I can tell you this right now that even now the front-runners for the GOP are only kind of serious about what they say about the economy. But really their main issues seem to be: Israel, Stopping Gay Marriage, Keeping Big Military, Israel, Tax Cuts for *the* "Job Creators" (hey at least they accept that class exists!), Somehow Making Sure All Children Have a Father and Mother (Apparently that is the only way "Liberty" is allowed to exist without society crumbling!), Israel, Pleasing God by making America as Christian as possible (That's the only way our country can survive by receiving his blessing!), Letting Corporations Pollute the Air (So we can breathe Freedom!), Culture Warring Against Gaga and The Gays, and uh...something about Israel?

Of course Ron Paul is always an exception (to most of these at least) but he is not a front-runner, and there were some interesting things, like a push for natural gas. Most candidates/speakers did not make clear distinctions between themselves, although some are worst than others. I particularly despise Pawlenty and Sanford, who seem to be competing for the Familyocracy vote. At this point I feel like I am going to have to vote for Obama.

OP seems to be jobless and is supporting the Republicans... Yes, Americans appear smart if OPs intelligence is below the 90% of the population.

Joking aside, to me the US is right-winged or more right-winged. There is no left-winged party in the USA.
From my point of view: Republicans always seem to get tax reductions for rich people/companies and spend it to military "toys for big boys". Democrats always seem to have to clean up the mess of the Republicans, being unable to to actually do something useful within the time they get.

But don't worry, I see the same here in The Netherlands with the only exception that we haven't had a left-winged government for quite come time. So instead of generating huge debts, our right-winged governments have been breaking down all the social security we have build up in the past and making everything more expensive.

GIYF

yes it's god damned. What's 31337?

ROFL! 

God Damned, actually, but I like your interpretation, too.

I'm not terribly 31337, so what does that mean? Rolling on the floor laughing my Grand Democratic ass off?

ROFLMGDAO!!

NO