Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Most Popular Party for American Citizen-Taxpayers of the 21st Century

21st Century Democratic Reform  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Did You read the entire first post?

    • Yes
    • No, I prefer to be uneducated.
  2. 2. Which Party has been more popular with the most American Citizen-Taxpayers?

    • Democrats
    • Republicans
    • The facts are wrong, neither party has been more popular than the other overall in election cycles in the 21st century
  3. 3. Which of the following do you believe?

    • Our current election systems are not friendly to Democracy.
    • Expanding Democracy with reform will better reflect the will of the people.
    • The electoral college should be abolished.
    • The electoral college should be kept, but the EVs per state should be recalculated to better reflect population.
    • The fact a Wyoming citizen-taxpayer is worth 4x a California citizen-taxpayer is not fair to a citizen-taxpayer in California
    • The US House should be expanded to 1,000 US Reps
    • US House districts should be redistricted along the lines of the non-partisan US Census districts.
    • US Senate should be abolished, making the US House more like Parliament in a way
    • US Territories and non-states (like DC) should be given 1 US Senator (2 upon statehood) if their citizens are comprised mostly of US Citizen-Taxpayers. No Taxation without Representation!
    • State legislative districts should be redistricted along the lines of the non-partisan US Census districts.
    • The president should face a recall election if he is below either 35 or 30% approval within the last month before midterms. The VP would take over until the next election.
    • The 60% votes needed to confirm a judge should be made permanent. No nuclear option.
    • SC Judges should be term limited to 10 years, but can be reappointed by the incumbent president upon reaching that term limit.
    • SC Judges should have an age requirement (Either a retirement age, minimum appointment age, or both).
    • Should a SC Justice nominee be blocked, the Sen Maj leader present a list of 100 acceptable federal judges of the president's party or that are known independents.
    • Any other reform suggested by you that would both loosen the restrictions on the will of the majority of American citizen-taxpayers and make a positive impact on the success of the country as a whole.


Recommended Posts

This post is similar to one of my recent posts. I've been looking at the popular vote margin for Pres elections, US Sen elections, US House elections, Gov elections. What it underscores is not just how restrictive our system is to popular democracy and to the suffrage equality of every American citizen-tax payer, but also that some reform needs to be done to better capture the will of people. The suffrage gap must be decreased. A citizen-tax payer in Wyoming should not be worth 4x the citizen-tax payer of California, for instance. 

First I'll present, the popular vote margin between the two major parties, then I'll present some ideas for reform that would better capture the will of the people. [Note: Remember this post is about national popularity of the parties for the argument of Democracy, so I'm not considering the regional purpose of seats under a representative republic, which doesn't seem to represent us well anymore.]

1. 21st Century US House Elections by party margin: 

House:
2000 - 0.5 R
2002 - 4.8 R
2004 - 2.6 R
2006 - 8.0 D
2008 - 10.6 D *Best performance of the 21st century*
2010 - 7.8 R  *Best PV performance by Republicans, but 4th best PV performance overall in the 21st century; won the most seats, however*
2012 - 1.2 D *But GOP won the most seats*
2014 - 5.7 R
2016 - 1.1 R
2018 - 8.6 D
2020? -  *What do you think happens?*
21st Century US House Balance: 13.9 D *Republicans have actually won the PV in more election cycles, but Democrats have generally blown the GOP out of the water when they have won.*

2. 21st Century US House Elections by party margin:

Senate
2000 - 0.0 D *D by 50,000 votes, wins the most seats too*
2002 - 4.0 R 
2004 - 5.5 D
2006 - 11.4 D *Yet, GOP still gained in seats*
2008 - 8.4 D
2010 - 5.3 R *Dem's still held the senate, but lost a bunch of seats*
2012 - 11.6 D
2014 - 7.9 R *Best PV performance by Reps, but 6th best PV performance overall*
2016 - 12.4 D *GOP held the senate, but lost seats.*
2018 - 19.6 D *In one of the strangest elections, Reps were shellacked in the popular vote by the largest PV defeat in the 21st century, but they still gained senate seats!*
2020? *What do you think happens*
21st Century US Senate Balance: 51.7 D *Reps only won the PV in 3 US Senate cycles, but they gained seats in five cycles.*

3. 21st Century Presidential Elections by party margin:

President
2000 - 0.5 D *Yet, GOP wins the presidency*
2002
2004 - 2.4 R *Best performance by GOP, and only time they won the PV in this type of election*
2006
2008 - 7.2 D *Largest margin in the 21st century*
2010
2012 - 3.9 D 
2014
2016 - 2.1 D *Yet, GOP wins the presidency despite a gap similar to Kerry's defeat in 2004*
2018
2020? - *What do you think happens*
21st Century President Balance: 12.7 D *Without an electoral college, Democrats would have won all but one of these elections.*

4. 21st Century Governor's Elections by party margin*:

[*Note: wikipedia doesn't capture PV for 2000 and 2002 gov elections; I don't include the odd year elections, since it's only like two states in those years]

Governors
2000 - n/a *wiki doesn't capture PV, but Dems gained seats, so it's likely they won the PV too*
2002 - n/a *wiki doesn't capture PV, but Dems gained seats, so it's likely they won the PV too*
2004 - 1.0 D *but no seat change*
2006 - 6.2 D *Best performance*
2008 - 3.0 D
2010 - 0.8 R *Massive seat gain for GOP, despite a low PV in all Gov elections*
2012 - 1.8 R
2014 - 4.1 R *GOP's best performance,, but only 2nd best performance overall*
2016 - 1.9 R
2018 - 3.0 D 
2020? *What do you think happens*
21st Century Governors Balance: 4.5 D *Possibly a larger margin for D's consider 2000 and 2002 aren't captured, both of which D's gained seats. Dems and Reps won the PV in 4 cycles in the 21st cenutry between 2004 and 2018.*

Overall, Democrats have won the 21st century balance of every election type. 

5. Here are the total combined PV margin results by elections year:

Combined
2000 - 0.0 tie *Dems probably actually win, but wiki doesn't have PV for gov elections for this year*
2002 - 8.8 R *GOP definitely wins, but the margin may be smaller as Dem's may have won PV in governor elections*
2004 - 1.5 D
2006 - 25.6 D
2008 - 29.2 D
2010 - 13.9 R
2012 - 14.9 D
2014 - 17.7 R *Best PV performance by GOP, but only 4th best overall*
2016 - 11.5 D
2018 - 31.2 D *Best PV performance of the 21st century*
2020? - *What do you think happens?*
21st Century Combined Balance: 53.5 D *Democrats win the PV in either 6 or 7 elections cycles and GOP only 3. On top of this, when the GOP wins , it may win a wave of seats, but they don't really win a wave of popular support. A combined 17.7 of collective margins of victory falls far short of Dem margins of 31.2, 29.2, and 25.6..
 
Despite this, the GOP has often kept or increased control of the US House, the Senate, and they've defied the will of the people in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016. This suggest that reform is needed to better capture the American Citizen-Tax Payer electorate. Here are some suggested reforms:
 
Suggested Reform
 
1. The Electoral College should either be abolished or recalculated following US House redistricting and expansion reform. 
 
2. The US House should expand so that a US Rep can better represent and have a far easier time meeting with every constituent. Districts should resemble neighborhoods, similar to the nonpartisan US Census districts. A Wyoming citizen-taxpayer should not be worth 4x the citizen-taxpayer in California. A good compromise would be to reduce this to 2x, but the goal should be to make them equal to one another. A US House of 1,000 Reps should be fair. Any argument opposing this based on the size of the capitol building is making a very weak and pathetic argument (this is usually the first response i get to this suggestion). 
 
3. The US Senate should stay as two senators per state for now, but I'd favor abolishing the Senate if most people wanted to do that, having the House operate more like Parliament. I'd also like to see all territories/non-states gain 1 US Senator each if the inhabitants are US Citizens and are American tax payers. No taxation without representation. There are 5 territories + DC that I believe are composed primarily of American citizens that pay taxes. That would mean 6 new US Senators. They would gain a 2nd senator upon earning statehood. 
 
4. No change to the US Governorships, but the state legislatures should be redistricted along the lines of the non-partisan US Census districts. 
 
5. I'd also like to see a midterm recall election on presidents that fall below either 35% or 30% in approval in an averaging of polls approved by both the RNC and DNC. Only polls a month before midterms would be considered, which would give the president time to be more favorable to the balance of the country. 
 
6. Judges should be term limited to 10 years, but they can be reappointed for another 10 years by the incumbent president. On top of this, a retirement age of 80 should be adopted, and a minimum age of 50. The nuclear option should be permanently erased, making the 60 votes needed for confirmation permanent. To prevent a perpetual Merrick Garlanding, should a SC Justice be blocked, the Sen Maj leader will present a list of 100 acceptable incumbent federal judges known to be members of the president's party. 
 
Overall, most of the above reform definitely helps the Democrats, but they are also generally the party that is much more Democratic and much more popular. 
 
What are your thoughts on reform? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for preferring to be uneducated just because it was an option. 😂 Also your proposed reforms are extremely bias. Why do you want to turn the US into a one party state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I voted for preferring to be uneducated just because it was an option. 😂 Also your proposed reforms are extremely bias. Why do you want to turn the US into a one party state?

I think we should strive to be a multiparty state (at least 3 if not more)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I voted for preferring to be uneducated just because it was an option. 😂 Also your proposed reforms are extremely bias. Why do you want to turn the US into a one party state?

It won’t be a one party state if the GOP evolves in the 21st century. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It won’t be a one party state if the GOP evolves in the 21st century. 

Maybe it's stuff like this that got Trump elected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I think we should strive to be a multiparty state (at least 3 if not more)

We should for sure, but if those reforms were put into action we'd end up being a one party state with massive government control. The supreme court, which is already too politicized, would be politicized even more. Propping up parties and giving them legitimaticy is very different than just, "this is good for the Democratic party, they are the party of democracy and are more much popular let's do this" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I would have liked an option for no reforms to be implemented. As it stands now I had to vote for one, and that last option is essentially just "a strong guiding hand to make decisions for me would be preferable to thinking for myself" but that makes sense when the first question asks if you read the post anyway... 

Edited by SilentLiberty
Thining lol should have been thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

We should for sure, but if those reforms were put into action we'd end up being a one party state with massive government control. The supreme court, which is already too politicized, would be politicized even more. Propping up parties and giving them legitimaticy is very different than just, "this is good for the Democratic party, they are the party of democracy and are more much popular let's do this" 

Yeah most of this is just crackpot stuff, doesn't take into account literal one party races and how parties currently conduct outreach, this shouldn't be taken seriously because it'sa  diagnostic of a government that isn't ours, this is the sign of a healthy and functioning Republic, do we have problems? Yes. Would trying to turn us into a Democracy make them much worse? Yes.

Also I'm currently doing a districting project where I use the redistricting app to return America to the 1940 level of 300,000 people per Congressional district which would bring us close to 1,000 Representatives and all but abolish 1-party House delegations from the several states. @vcczar may find this interesting, I can post maps and stats and make it a series if people are interested.

That being said, the integrity of state sovreignty should not be infringed as most of these reforms would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

We should for sure, but if those reforms were put into action we'd end up being a one party state with massive government control. The supreme court, which is already too politicized, would be politicized even more. Propping up parties and giving them legitimaticy is very different than just, "this is good for the Democratic party, they are the party of democracy and are more much popular let's do this" 

How would the SC be politicized more. The 60 vote requirement, along with the Sen Maj leader sending a list of acceptable judges would pretty much make it much more likely that all judges would be swing judges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

@vcczar you voted for both abolishing the electoral college and for keeping it and adjusting it lol

That's because I'd accept either one of those. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

How would the SC be politicized more. The 60 vote requirement, along with the Sen Maj leader sending a list of acceptable judges would pretty much make it much more likely that all judges would be swing judges. 

Sure that part of it is sounds nice. It's the age requirement thing and term limits I'd be most concerned about. I think term limits are generally a good thing but nowhere was term limits proposed except for Supreme Court Justices, which is a position where they express they are above petty party politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Sure that part of it is sounds nice. It's the age requirement thing and term limits I'd be most concerned about. I think term limits are generally a good thing but nowhere was term limits proposed except for Supreme Court Justices, which is a position where they express they are above petty party politics. 

You're right. I should have proposed them for Congress since I believe they should be term limited as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You're right. I should have proposed them for Congress since I believe they should be term limited as well. 

One thing I do like about the 1,000 Rep Congress where each district has about 300,000 people is that we could probably reform district names to the British way, so intead of California's 92nd, we could have "Long Beach-Torrance". Or instead of Hawaii's 4th we could have "Oahu West". I must say, I do prefer the British naming system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-partisan districting is obviously a good thing.

State sovereignty is a myth.  The states haven't been self governing in over a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

I voted for preferring to be uneducated just because it was an option. 😂 Also your proposed reforms are extremely bias. Why do you want to turn the US into a one party state?

A rigid two-party system with no other party being de facto and institutionally competitive is, among political party systems in the world, ONLY better than a one-party system by legal ban on all other parties, a dominant-party system (very popular in many African "emerging democracies"), and a party-of-power system (such as is common in many post-Soviet states, including Russia). Every other style of partisan system is superior in terms of voter choice, accountability to the voters, need for political compromise, and citizen empowerment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

One thing I do like about the 1,000 Rep Congress where each district has about 300,000 people is that we could probably reform district names to the British way, so intead of California's 92nd, we could have "Long Beach-Torrance". Or instead of Hawaii's 4th we could have "Oahu West". I must say, I do prefer the British naming system.

I think that should be done already. These soulless, unevocative, hollow numbers that, if you're not already familiar with them, you have to look up on election maps, and then again going into historical elections with re-apportionment, should be done away with regardless. We've used the British system of constituency naming in Canada since there was a Canada...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

One thing I do like about the 1,000 Rep Congress where each district has about 300,000 people is that we could probably reform district names to the British way, so intead of California's 92nd, we could have "Long Beach-Torrance". Or instead of Hawaii's 4th we could have "Oahu West". I must say, I do prefer the British naming system.

Yeah, I like that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

A rigid two-party system with no other party being de facto and institutionally competitive is, among political party systems in the world, ONLY better than a one-party system by legal ban on all other parties, a dominant-party system (very popular in many African "emerging democracies"), and a party-of-power system (such as is common in many post-Soviet states, including Russia). Every other style of partisan system is superior in terms of voter choice, accountability to the voters, need for political compromise, and citizen empowerment.

Man. I'd love to be able to reply to this but I've re-read it already 3 times and don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. I know you're shitting on America and two party system as you normally do but apart from that I really am not following. It almost comes across that you are endorsing a one party state which would absolutely not be like you at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You're right. I should have proposed them for Congress since I believe they should be term limited as well. 

Would be one of the few issues I'd ever run a campaign on if I were to ever run for anything. Something that I think most people from both parties could agree on too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SilentLiberty said:

Man. I'd love to be able to reply to this but I've re-read it already 3 times and don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. I know you're shitting on America and two party system as you normally do but apart from that I really am not following. It almost comes across that you are endorsing a one party state which would absolutely not be like you at all. 

No, I'm shitting specifically on a two-party system. It doesn't have to be the U.S. Most Anglo-Caribbean nations also have two-party systems that are that rigid (Jamaica's two parties were founded by first-cousins of each other - Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante back in the 1940's, in fact), and look how little political progress they make. Portugal, the most politically corrupt nation in the EU, has such a rigid two-party system two. The British rigid two-party system, which had dated back to 1640, was actually broken (or had the foundations of it's breaking enabled) by the Electoral Reform of 1894, I believe, when the suffrage was increased by multitudes, and the constituencies were made sensible. In general, two-party rigid system, regardless of where they are, are a political detriment, impediment, and handicap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

No, I'm shitting specifically on a two-party system. It doesn't have to be the U.S. Most Anglo-Caribbean nations also have two-party systems that are that rigid (Jamaica's two parties were founded by first-cousins of each other - Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante back in the 1940's, in fact), and look how little political progress they make. Portugal, the most politically corrupt nation in the EU, has such a rigid two-party system two. The British rigid two-party system, which had dated back to 1640, was actually broken (or had the foundations of it's breaking enabled) by the Electoral Reform of 1894, I believe, when the suffrage was increased by multitudes, and the constituencies were made sensible. In general, two-party rigid system, regardless of where they are, are a political detriment, impediment, and handicap.

Okay I see. This makes a lot more sense now. My bad, was just having some difficulty. I'm not for or against a two party system. I am against a one party state though. I do think there should be more viable parties but I think, at least in the US, the third parties do more to hurt themselves than to help themselves. Justin Amash the most libertarian you could probably get right now is listed as an independent and not a libertarian, things like that aren't helping expand third parties even though there is some what of a thirst and hunger for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US doesn't have a two-party system, it has hundreds of parties but only two popular ones. Literally all a party has to do is get 5% and it'll get federal funding. The Libertarians could have if their nominee wasn't an actual idiot and Libertarians would get out of their basement to vote (and I say this as a Libertarian, most of them are NEET losers but not as bad as Bernie supporters)

But then again Johnson wasn't as retarded as the other Libertarian candidates

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

The US doesn't have a two-party system, it has hundreds of parties but only two popular ones. Literally all a party has to do is get 5% and it'll get federal funding. The Libertarians could have if their nominee wasn't an actual idiot and Libertarians would get out of their basement to vote (and I say this as a Libertarian, most of them are NEET losers but not as bad as Bernie supporters)

But then again Johnson wasn't as retarded as the other Libertarian candidates

 

It has a de facto two party system, where the media, the electoral system, the registration rules, and other institutional elements that SHOULD be non-partisan so immensely favour the two main parties, in a way that can be called corruption, rigging, and criminal electoral malpractice, that marginalizes all other parties to make them non-competitive because the whole engine of the electoral is weighed against them like a mountain, NOT just because they happen to be "Third Parties and Independents," by that quality alone and in and of itself. The electoral system is damned racket, and is CONTROLLED, top-to-bottom, by the two main parties, even in areas where virtually all other First World Nations demand strictly non-partisan, by law, control of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

It has a de facto two party system, where the media, the electoral system, the registration rules, and other institutional elements that SHOULD be non-partisan so immensely favour the two main parties, in a way that can be called corruption, rigging, and criminal electoral malpractice, that marginalizes all other parties to make them non-competitive because the whole engine of the electoral is weighed against them like a mountain, NOT just because they happen to be "Third Parties and Independents," by that quality alone and in and of itself. The electoral system is damned racket, and is CONTROLLED, top-to-bottom, by the two main parties, even in areas where virtually all other First World Nations demand strictly non-partisan, by law, control of.

The US has a free press, and one of the disadvantages of such being that you can't force them to cover 100 parties that you want because we live in a Democracy, if other parties can't be successful on their own it makes zero sense to cover them and lose ratings.

The electoral system favors no party, it favors the candidate who has a better strategy.

Literally all it would take for a third party would be for a respectable member of Government (a former gov, like Gary Johnson) to become a Libertarian or Green Party member and be consistent with their ideology to make their loser supporters get out and vote (Johnson polled at 11%, but then had like 10 gaffes, didn't know one of the most strategic ISIS strongpoints, faked a heart attack, etc.) and got over 3%. It would be so easy for him to have gotten to 5%, and then with federal funding they can afford media time and stuff and do even better. Ez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...