[Politics] Politics without politicians. Guest Hèléne Landmore. With a personal note.

Sorry for not posting in a very long while, it's a combination of personal stuff and well as a total disgust with the current political situation.

Yet today I came across a TV program that has touched a nerve of what I have been saying for decades.

It totally agrees with the current causes that I have been saying across multiple areas for decades.

I do have serious concerns on the solutions presented however. Some are just too socialistic if not outright communistic. Yet that doesn't mean the causes are incorrect. Just the solutions would cause more problems later on. Communism is not the answer.

Note: This video interview, is geared on the international causes. So please bare that in mind.

https://www.pbs.org/video/a-world-without-politicians-wk2r6a/

Some notes that were not mentioned, if even a tiny bit inaccurate. The world situation was in the switch even before the 1780s.

Why? Because Adam Smith's publication "the wealth of nations" was based on previous mercantile principles throughout Europe and that was written in 1776. Yes the very year of our constitution.

Note: Not mentioned was any bill of rights. This very principle of a bill if Rights is key to ANY democracy. And why the USA itself is in serious trouble for giving up the Rights of the people to the corporate oligarchs.

A mention of the electorate was given, yet more in the sense of the Euro electorate rather than the USA electorate. The two are not the same types of electorate and in the USA it's a constitutional mandate. The constitution needs to change just for even that to change.

Top | New | Old

ninalanyon · 70-79, TVIP

I don't think I quite understand this sentence:

The two are not the same types of electorate and in the USA it's a constitutional mandate.

View 1 more replies »

ninalanyon · 70-79, TVIP

@DeWayfarer Ah, you mean the Electoral College? I don't think there is any equivalent body in any European country, perhaps nowhere else either. In fact quite a few (or is it most) European countries don't have executive presidents anyway. In the UK and Norway for instance the executive is simply the ruling group of representatives headed by a prime minister and that prime minister is chosen by the parliament not the people. Presidents (or constitutional monarchs) usually have mostly ceremonial and moral power except that they can in exceptional circumstances dissolve parliament (causing new elections to be held) or temporarily block legislation.

It's a lot easier to amend constitutions in most European countries. Norway has had over three hundred amendments in the last two centuries.

There is an interesting page summarizing the frequency of such activity around the world at https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1233309-constitutional-amendments-worldwide

But would eliminating the Electoral College really make a meaningful difference to US politics?

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ninalanyon Please note it says on the state level that the States determine how they are set up.

To give an example of difference within the states is most states have a winner takes all electorates yet in the state of Kansas the electorates are based on districts for voting for the president.

There were other methods in the past and that was just for president and vice president.

Yet notice many states use that electorate on the state level for governors. That I know even the UK has though they don't call it states. Other EU countries are the same.

Please note the following uses different names that amount to the same thing as state electorates...

Under EU rules each member state chooses its own method for electing MEPs, subject to two constraints: it must be a form of proportional representation (party list or STV) and any national threshold may not exceed 5%. Practical consequences and variation:

Single national constituency (most states)

Most EU countries treat the whole country as one constituency and use party‑list PR (open or closed lists) with seat allocation by highest‑averages (D'Hondt, Sainte‑Laguë) or largest‑remainder methods. Examples: France (single national list since 2019; closed lists), Spain, Netherlands, Portugal.

Subnational constituencies

Several countries divide their territory into multiple constituencies for EP elections while retaining proportionality. Examples:

Belgium: three linguistic electoral colleges (Dutch, French, German); the German college elects one MEP. Wikipedia

Germany: uses Länder (states) as constituencies for seat distribution. stevendroper.com

Ireland: multiple constituencies using Single Transferable Vote (STV). Wikipedia

(Historically the UK and its regions used regional constituencies; Northern Ireland used STV.) Wikipedia

Voting methods

Party-list PR is dominant; STV is used in Ireland (and historically in Northern Ireland). List systems vary by:

Open vs closed lists (voters can express preferences for candidates on a party list or only for the list).

Seat‑allocation formula (D'Hondt common; some use Sainte‑Laguë or Hare quota variants).

Thresholds and special rules
Member states may set thresholds up to 5% (some have none). Special rules exist for linguistic/territorial minorities (e.g., Belgium’s colleges). EU-level proposals have discussed a uniform minimum threshold for very large constituencies, but national choices remain.

Degressive proportionality and seat numbers

Seat allocation among member states follows degressive proportionality (smaller states get proportionally more seats than larger states), but that governs MEP counts per country, not the internal electoral method.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ninalanyon please refer to the video on why that would make such a huge difference in the USA.

The electorates are the small oligarchs. They make the decisions on who runs for anything.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@sarabee1995 Debatable, there were many versions. One for a Federation instead of a Republic. See the federalist papers. Please keep in mind that the articles of confederation were in place in 1776. Yet the point was about Adam Smith's published book "the wealth of nations" was exactly in 1776 and it was about capitalism.

Hence the question...

Nobody knew what form of government. They were asking.

You are referring to the full ratification by all thirteen colonies when there was doubt in 1776. That book by Adam Smith was influential in the decision though. As was the federalist papers much later.

We got a Republic in the end. Not a monarchy, nor a democracy, as called for in the federalist papers.

Add a comment...