Paul Ryan Requested Obamacare Funding!

[kefkaownsall]

This is why I prefer party list or whatever they do in Netherlands where everyone gets their party. 

[Lt. Fred]

I 100% agree. The European multi-member electorate thing rocks shit.

[kefkaownsall]

The oddest election system is Japan's which is somehow the only democratic one party system.  Basically it forces people of the main party to compete against each other creating basically permanent era of good feelings.

[m52nickerson]

No, it isn't. The Republicans have a relatively strict party loyalty system. Your theory that the US voting system- which is basically the same as Australia's or Britain's anyway- determines the weak party structure is therefore wrong.

The GOP is not strict at all by your standards.  Every major piece of Democratic legislation that has passed has had some members of the GOP vote for it at some point.

You can't say the two systems are the same since one side of the Australian parliament is voted for by party and the Prime Minister is not elected at all.  Those are major differences.  Add those to preferential voting and compulsory voting down under and the US primary system and the two look nothing a like. 

[Lt. Fred]

No, it isn't. The Republicans have a relatively strict party loyalty system. Your theory that the US voting system- which is basically the same as Australia's or Britain's anyway- determines the weak party structure is therefore wrong.

The GOP is not strict at all by your standards.  Every major piece of Democratic legislation that has passed has had some members of the GOP vote for it at some point.

It's certainly sub-optimal, but they're far better organised than the Democrats. And they're winning elections and passing policy they otherwise wouldn't because of it.

You can't say the two systems are the same since one side of the Australian parliament is voted for by party and the Prime Minister is not elected at all.  Those are major differences.  Add those to preferential voting and compulsory voting down under and the US primary system and the two look nothing a like.

Until you can explain how this effects what we're talking about in the slightest, you can stop saying this. As far as I'm concerned it's just a red herring.

[Canadian Mojo]

No, it isn't. The Republicans have a relatively strict party loyalty system. Your theory that the US voting system- which is basically the same as Australia's or Britain's anyway- determines the weak party structure is therefore wrong.

The GOP is not strict at all by your standards.  Every major piece of Democratic legislation that has passed has had some members of the GOP vote for it at some point.

It's certainly sub-optimal, but they're far better organised than the Democrats. And they're winning elections and passing policy they otherwise wouldn't because of it.

You can't say the two systems are the same since one side of the Australian parliament is voted for by party and the Prime Minister is not elected at all.  Those are major differences.  Add those to preferential voting and compulsory voting down under and the US primary system and the two look nothing a like.

Until you can explain how this effects what we're talking about in the slightest, you can stop saying this. As far as I'm concerned it's just a red herring.

We could start with this paper Perils of Presidentialism which is summarized by one of the author's critics:

Linz argues that the presidential office introduces an undesirable element of winner-take-all politics into societies that need mechanisms of conciliation instead. A presidential candidate is either elected or not, whereas in parliamentary systems many shades of outcome are possible. Moreover, a directly elected president may think he has a popular "mandate," even if he has been elected with only a small plurality of the vote, perhaps even less than 40 percent. The potential for conflict is accordingly enhanced. Conflict is promoted, in Linz's view, by the separation of powers that divides the legislature from the president. The fixed term of a separately elected president makes for rigidity between elections. By contrast, parliamentary systems are able to resolve crises at any time simply by changing leaders or governments. Separate presidential election also produces weak cabinets and fosters electoral contests in which extremists either have too much influence or the whole society becomes polarized.

Source

(Horowitz feels this is unsubstantiated because of selectivity in picking governments to compare among other criticisms not particularly pertinent to this discussion)

[Lt. Fred]

Okay, arguably that's a thing (though I think it's wrong). Explain how it isn't a red herring.

[Canadian Mojo]

Okay, arguably that's a thing (though I think it's wrong). Explain how it isn't a red herring.

It throws your 'you don't vote for an individual' mantra right out the window, but it also highlights a larger problem based on the structural differences.

The American system is very rigid and inflexible. By its very nature it is a polarizing force. Following strict party control would only exacerbate the situation and create more extremism. Member dissent is a safety valve that tries to keep these things in check.
Our parliamentary systems allow for a much greater deal of flexibility when it comes to governing and is better able to deal with rigid parties provided there are a lot of them at the table so that a variety of views are represented.

[m52nickerson]

It's certainly sub-optimal, but they're far better organised than the Democrats. And they're winning elections and passing policy they otherwise wouldn't because of it.

Name a major piece of legislation they (the GOP) have passed in the last 4 years.  Than look at what the Democrats have passed. 

Until you can explain how this effects what we're talking about in the slightest, you can stop saying this. As far as I'm concerned it's just a red herring.

In addition to what Canadian Mojo posted the US system also makes it that politician are often more apt to side with the voters in their state or district than the party.  That is why you had Dems like Bill Nelson not wanting to vote for health care reform.  It was unpopular in his state, if for nothign else than wanting to keep his job he was representing the voters in his state. 

The US system normally can't move as fast as a parliament system but in turn it is also less likely to have wild knee jerk changes in legislation.  If the US was a parliament system it is likely the Dems could have gotten true universal health care, it is also just as likely that the GOP would be able to do away with it.  Right now the GOP would have to keep the House, take the Senate with a super majority and most likely also take the White House to kill Obamacare.

[The Illusive Man]

If you look at it from the perspective of Ralph Nader, sure you can be more of a pain in the arse if you draw off half a dozen Democratic votes from an important state. But you're never going to win anything- you're a spoiler

How is this not demonstrating political influence? If another party wants your votes than they have to make a compromise with you. In IRV a third party does not have control over its own votes as they are taken and tallied into another party's total.

, not a real political force in a FPTP system.
In a preferential system, you can actually win and get in parliament and then dick with shit there.

What is a "real political force" because I am calling you out on a No True Scotsman Fallacy right now.