The Political No Win Scenario

[Panacea]

Granted, there are definite disadvantages of our system. We might actually do better if we could get rid of Congress with a simple vote of no confidence.

And I would love to get rid of the perennial election cycle BS.

But it won't happen. There would have to be a Constitutional convention and that won't happen.

And to tell you the truth, I'm not so sure things would really improve that much. We would still have a badly gerrymandered system of districts subject to political manipulation. Nor would big money leave the system, but rather re manifest itself in new ways. The issue is too complicated for such a simple fix.

[mikoyan29]

When I say flat tax...I mean a flat income tax. Not a VAT or some of the other taxing schemes in other countries. I do believe the income tax originally started that way but has morphed into what we have now.

[HYHYBT]

I'm not so sure things would really improve that much. We would still have a badly gerrymandered system of districts subject to political manipulation.

Indeed, the way our districts are currently drawn, it would make things worse. Right now, all gerrymandering can do is make it harder to flip the House of Representatives. If the Senate were either chosen the same way, abolished, or made significantly less powerful, and if the House chose the president... well, the whole government would be vulnerable to it. How do other countries avoid or minimize that problem?

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, to be bluntly honest the US would function much better as a parliamentary system. It has a large population yet 50 separate entities. If everyone was afforded equal representation in a parliament according to population rather than a weighted electoral vote it might work better.

There's a reason we have both a House and a Senate. Because having just the House would give 1/3 of the country as much weight as the rest and be just as divisive, which is what having the Senate is supposed to counter.

I'm not saying it works like it should, just that basing it purely on population wouldn't help matters much if at all, and could very well make them worse.

[Gravekeeper]

There's a reason we have both a House and a Senate. Because having just the House would give 1/3 of the country as much weight as the rest and be just as divisive, which is what having the Senate is supposed to counter.

We have both a House and Senate as well. The systems aren't hugely different in that regard. Just that our system is more flexible for giving an accurate representation of the actual votes cast. Because you can't "win" a province. It stays at a district level. So you can't gerrymander the system.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's impossible to make the flat tax progressive; it is contrary to the very nature of the tax becasue it is a sales tax and all sales taxes are regressive.

Umm, no.
It is just as easy to make a sales tax progressive as an income tax, and it has nothing to do with showing pay stubs at check out. Nevada has a very progressive sales tax. We have zero sales tax on unprepared food items (what the lowest income spends most of there money on), then move up to a 7.8% tax on general goods and services (prepared foods fall under this category) to give a tax base that targets mainly the middle class (there is some money spent by the lower class on this category as well, but no where near to the extent of the middle and upper class), and then we have luxury taxes on things like live entertainment and new car sales and other things that tend to be patronized mainly by those in the upper income brackets. And the true beuaty of it is that there is no loopholes, no excemptions, no way to get out of paying your fair share (short of driving to California to do your shopping, but then you'd actually end up paying more taxes).

[Rapscallion]

"YOU KILL BABIES"

Note to self, don't laugh at baby killing.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

How do other countries avoid or minimize that problem?

Above the 49th here districts are separate entities and are based on population.

In the states, regardless of the district size and borders, you're still electing two representatives per state. This makes it extremely easy to adjust district size and borders because the number of voters per representative doesn't change. The problem is that the district results is applied as a red/blue vote instead of individual voters. Those district definitions are more important than the raw numbers. This is what causes the gerrymandering that occurs.

Now consider up here. Districts are separate and have one representative per district. Those raw numbers are the utmost important part of deciding who represents that district and the population numbers are the key defining aspect and tightly regulated. A representative can't just adjust their district to give themselves a better result because it affects another representative and is illegal.

It's not a perfect system (have you seen the land mass of some of these districts? sheesh.) but apart from having to remodel the house of commons every few cycles it works very well and makes gerrymandering practically non-existent.

[Panacea]

When I say flat tax...I mean a flat income tax. Not a VAT or some of the other taxing schemes in other countries. I do believe the income tax originally started that way but has morphed into what we have now.

Well, that will never happen. And even if it did, some of the deductions actually benefit the country; the mortgage interest deduction is what makes home ownership possible for most people. A flat income tax would create more problems than it would solve.

We have both a House and Senate as well. The systems aren't hugely different in that regard. Just that our system is more flexible for giving an accurate representation of the actual votes cast. Because you can't "win" a province. It stays at a district level. So you can't gerrymander the system.

Who draws up the districts within a province in Canada?

In the US, districts are drawn up in most states by the state Legislature. So the party in power gets to decide what the district borders are. That's why we have gerrymandering: the district borders are drawn in such a way as to concentrate voters from one party or another to create "safe" seats. Incumbents really don't have to work hard to get re-elected, but the party in power always has more "safe" seats than the party out of power.

Of course upsets happen. Solidly Democratic North Carolina went Republican in an act of angry rejection of political corruption by Gov. Mike Easley, and former Speaker Jim Black in a time when the economy was going sour. Unfortunately for the Dems, it happened right before the US Census, so Repubs happily redrew the districts to favor the Republican Party.

I suspect your answer to who draws the districts will reveal far less political interference in that process than what we have here.

Umm, no.
It is just as easy to make a sales tax progressive as an income tax, and it has nothing to do with showing pay stubs at check out. Nevada has a very progressive sales tax. We have zero sales tax on unprepared food items (what the lowest income spends most of there money on), then move up to a 7.8% tax on general goods and services (prepared foods fall under this category) to give a tax base that targets mainly the middle class (there is some money spent by the lower class on this category as well, but no where near to the extent of the middle and upper class), and then we have luxury taxes on

That's not really making it progressive. The poor still have to spend a lot of money on other goods that they pay the full tax rate on. And the poor don't typically buy unprepared foods because they are too expensive. They buy processed foods which are cheaper, but both unhealthy and taxed.

You can't make a sales tax progressive.

Above the 49th here districts are separate entities and are based on population.

In the states, regardless of the district size and borders, you're still electing two representatives per state. This makes it extremely easy to adjust district size and borders because the number of voters per representative doesn't change. The problem is that the district results is applied as a red/blue vote instead of individual voters. Those district definitions are more important than the raw numbers. This is what causes the gerrymandering that occurs.

I'm not sure you are understanding how our system works.

We have a bi-cameral system: the House and the Senate. We don't elect two representatives per state, we elect 2 senators per state. Districts don't matter for senators, each represents the entire state.

The House IS based on districts, which are apportioned every 10 years based on population. Since the number of representatives in Congress is fixed at 335 members, with every Census states lose or gain representatives based on population. So some states who either lose or gain will have to redraw their districts to account for this, and the districts are usually redrawn by the party that controls the state Legislature. See my response to GK above on why this is a problem.

[Gravekeeper]

Who draws up the districts within a province in Canada?

I suspect your answer to who draws the districts will reveal far less political interference in that process than what we have here.

Yes, quite. Districts are drawn up by an independent third party and periodically adjusted for growth every few years. The number of seats in Parliament is likewise adjusted with growth.

District plans are also subject to public review. People within a district are free to oppose district changes or boundaries if they feel its breaking up a cultural/historical area that should be a single district for example. Political parties aren't really allowed to touch them by and large.

Canadians also react quite poorly to any perceived political bullshit. We're less politically involved overall up here, but much more likely to jump on political bullshit. The Conservatives tried some American style tactics last election ( robocalls misleading people to the wrong polling stations ) and it lead to country wide protests for months. Along with criminal investigations and charges. They're still investigating it even now to drudge up everyone responsible.

Because of the way the district system works here, if a district is suspected of having a faulty outcome due to voter suppression, etc, a judge can overturn the result and order a re-vote in that district. So we can sort of go back and fix any dubious results after the fact. Because the province itself is not win or lost based on the districts.

If you're caught pulling shit at any level, you're literally going to lose seats and thus power in Parliament while your opponents gain. Even in the case of Overzealous Staffer(tm). He's going to lose his seat and your opponent(s) is going to gain it. You can't just sweep him under the rug and say you'll slap him on the wrist, its all good. -.-

[Panacea]

<snip>
If you're caught pulling shit at any level, you're literally going to lose seats and thus power in Parliament while your opponents gain. Even in the case of Overzealous Staffer(tm). He's going to lose his seat and your opponent(s) is going to gain it. You can't just sweep him under the rug and say you'll slap him on the wrist, its all good. -.-

It's time like this that I wished I lived in Canada.

My guess is as global warming sets in, I'll move north.

[Gravekeeper]

It's time like this that I wished I lived in Canada.

My guess is as global warming sets in, I'll move north.

By then you'll have to move north just to find anyone that believes it exists. -.-

[smileyeagle1021]

That's not really making it progressive. The poor still have to spend a lot of money on other goods that they pay the full tax rate on. And the poor don't typically buy unprepared foods because they are too expensive. They buy processed foods which are cheaper, but both unhealthy and taxed.

You can't make a sales tax progressive.

I said unprepared, not unprocessed.
Hamburger Helper, processed beyond recognition as it is, is still unprepared.
Lean Cuisine, good God is it processed, but still unprepared.
Prepared vs unprepared has to do with whether or not someone has made it ready to eat or if it needs to have someone make it ready to eat. I can't walk out of a grocery store with a pound of raw hamburger, a package of burger buns, and some ketchup and mustard and eat them directly from the packaging (well, okay, I could, but I'd probably be dead by the time I was done, you know, food poisoning and all), but I can walk into McDonalds and be handed a hamburger that is ready to eat out of the package. That is why I won't pay sales tax on the hamburger, the buns, the ketchup, and the mustard (along with the vast majority of my grocery shopping... it is rare for me to have to pay any sales tax when I go to WINCO to get my weekly groceries), but I will pay sales tax at McDonalds.
And yes, the working poor do spend a lot of money on things that are taxable, they do have to buy clothes, they do have to buy cooking utensils, they do have to non food items on a pretty regular basis... but how many of them are buying Blu-rays, and computers, and TVs, and restaurants, and cars, and all the other things that are the luxuries of the middle class? Yeah, $7 tax on buying clothes is painful, but it is a world apart from the $700 tax that someone is going to pay on a a high end entertainment center.

[Nekojin]

There's a significant chunk of the bottom tier that doesn't have access to a microwave, much less a refrigerator to put frozen meals in or a stove. McDonald's and Burger King are their "kitchen." So, yeah, as Panacea said, you can't make a sales tax be progressive - it's just not possible.

While a rich person might spend more, as a lump sum, than a poor person, the poor person is inevitably going to spend more as a percentage of their income on sales taxes. While the poor person is spending almost all of their post-rent income on things (physical goods - food, clothing, minor luxuries), the rich person spends a much larger percentage on services - getting other people to do things for them, which often includes shoving the tax burden of buying things onto the lower-class people who are doing those services. The rich also spend a phenomenally greater percentage of their money on investments, something that most poor people are incapable of doing at anything more than a token level.

[Panacea]

And yes, the working poor do spend a lot of money on things that are taxable, they do have to buy clothes, they do have to buy cooking utensils, they do have to non food items on a pretty regular basis... but how many of them are buying Blu-rays, and computers, and TVs, and restaurants, and cars, and all the other things that are the luxuries of the middle class? Yeah, $7 tax on buying clothes is painful, but it is a world apart from the $700 tax that someone is going to pay on a a high end entertainment center.

Actually, you'd be quite surprised. The working poor spend a lot of money at Wal Mart because it is the place where they can afford to get those kinds of items at prices they can afford . . . hence, they pay taxes on them.

And they do buy cars. Maybe not brand new ones, but they do buy them and pay the taxes like anyone else.

I don't know any economist who would tell you that sales taxes of any kind, even in Nevada, are anything but regressive.