Earlier quoted context omitted.
>federalizing who can vote Almost every single democracy in the world requires proof that you are eligible to vote. 80% of Americans agree with the idea as well. https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-suppor...
So let's have a national ID, given to all citizens. Unfortunately the party calling most strongly for proving eligibility absolutely hates that idea.
Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
361–370 of 413 posts
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in th…
Could you explain this to a non USian???
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons. i.e. they're not trying to win the next election. They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing politicians. I don't think this is "great" but it does make me wonder if the people who want an end to herditary peers are really going to like what they get.
They're there because someone a long time ago was wealthy and probably had ties to one or more monarchs. This is not a basis for holding power in any country that calls itself democratic. This idea that they are somehow above everyday concerns and that's a good thing is some sort of weird retcon, and if we're going to use unmitigated cynicism to impugn the validity of action of other office holders who are elected, o…
Here one will just get different "nepo babies" who are more directly involved in the struggle for power because they will be connected those in power - people who have been useful and will be wanted in future.
Some people say that the desire for power is the thing that should disqualify a person from having it. i.e. we perhaps need some anti-politicians. This would mean people who don't want to be in power having some forced upon them like in Jury duty.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collects ground rent. A few hundred pounds each year from everyone who owns property or land in and around the village.
Ah, so the property is owned by the people living there, while the land is owned by someone else? That sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Is this common in the UK?
Everyone recognises that it's absurd, and there've been attempts to fix it for over a century. They've already gone in Scotland, and the previous government finally passed legislation that would allow new leaseholds to be banned in England and Wales too (although it hasn't yet gone into effect). The current government has introduced a bill which will eventually bring the system to an end altogether.
As you might expect, there's huge opposition to these reforms from vested interests who are using every trick in the book to delay them. Getting rid of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords can only improve matters.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. The two party system is a consequence of using first past the post voting, which the US constitution doesn't even require. Use score voting instead, which can be done by ordinary legislation without any constitutional amendment, and you don't have a two party sy…
US "parties" are giant coalitions compared to the "parties" in parliamentary democracies. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions. Love him or hate him, Trump is a great example of this - in 2016, Trump effectively formed a new party focused on anti-immigration and…
The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather than forming temporary coalitions between various parties none of which can do anything unilaterally.
A different voting system allows you to have more than two viable parties, which changes the dynamic considerably.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? That's a separate argument. My point is Labour's change to the rules is very politically convenient for themselves. In the most recent polling, 32% of 16-17-year-olds would vote Labour, while only 17% of the overall electorate would vote Labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U... > They didn't run po…
> That's a separate argument. No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power. So the question is if it's good policy, and so I argue it is, if someone can be living by themselves, working in t…
You're reinforcing my point.
Minor parties (who might collectively be popular with the electorate) will never be able to change the voting methodology to their advantage because FPTP keeps the incumbents in place, and only the incumbents have the power to choose the voting system. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit.
Similarly, in this case, allowing children to vote helps the incumbents stay in place despite their party, and their leader being deeply unpopular with the electorate overall. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
US "parties" are giant coalitions compared to the "parties" in parliamentary democracies. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions. Love him or hate him, Trump is a great example of this - in 2016, Trump effectively formed a new party focused on anti-immigration and…
> Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions. The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather t…
The 51% is for the coalition, not the party. That’s what you’re missing. CoC Republicans for example have temporarily sacrificed their immigration policies to retain legislative influence - and they are a check on the Trumpist wing passing whatever anti-immigrant legislation they want, because they too cannot act without at least tacit support from the CoC wing.
The “major party” is from a systems perspective no different than a European parliamentary governing coalition.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
A party is a thing where multiple elected officials band together in a persistent coalition. The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature? On top of that, that section applies to how the votes of the electoral college delegates are counted. It doesn't s…
> The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature? I don't think it's a coincidence that every US state is structured as a smaller mirror of the federal government.
Using score voting instead of FPTP for state-level offices would be a straightforward legislative change in many states and still not require any change to the US Constitution even in the states where it would require a change to the state constitution, which is generally a much lower bar to overcome than a federal constitutional amendment.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions. The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather t…
Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election. The 51% is for the coalition , not the party. That’s what you’re missing. CoC Republicans for example have temporarily sacrificed their immigration policies to retain legislative influence - and they are a check on the Trumpist wing passing whatever anti-immigrant legislation they want, because they…
The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an individual legislator or party can prevent any other from introducing a bill and taking a vote on it.
In less partisan periods in US history, bills would often pass with the partial support of both major parties.
Moreover, the US coalitions being tied to the major parties makes them too sticky. For example, the people who want lower taxes aren't necessarily the people who want subsidies for oil companies, or increased military spending, but they've been stuck in the same "coalition" together for decades.
Suppose you want to do a carbon tax. People who don't like taxes are going to be a major opponent, so an obvious compromise would be to pass it as part of a net reduction in total taxes, e.g. reduce the federal payroll tax by more than the amount of the carbon tax. But that doesn't happen because the coalition that wants lower taxes never overlaps with the coalition that wants to do something about climate change. Meanwhile the coalition that wants lower taxes wouldn't propose a carbon tax on their own, and the coalition that wants a carbon tax to increase overall government revenue gets shot down because that would be extremely unpopular, so instead it never happens.
Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
AKA sortition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition “Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” ― Plato
Some people selected randomly might also be underqualified.