I'm pretty sure you all still need to reach eighteen to vote

Surely you don't think one needs to vote in order to take over a country? How cute!

As for preferential voting reference, TB--I think it's safe to assume that anyone who was here for the...discussion has reached a place with regards to it that's not likely to be shifted here and now.

And if anyone here missed that lovely time--we have archives. It's very educational. You should totes catch up.

Surely you don't think one needs to vote in order to take over a country? How cute!

My brother described his stint as a teacher at a private school as "Turning the children of the privileged classes into my socialist army of the undead." I acknowledge my error. (And cuteness.)

woohoo, I've made my $20 off ebay for this month. I am kinda loving the pressure having that in my budget put on me.

Offer to bet. In my last job I made money from a conservative co-worker.After the third time he stopped discussing politics. Because I refused to discuss factual disagreements unless he was willing to bet on them.

He might be willing to take me up on it.

The particular co-worker in question is one I normally get along with pretty well.

Oddly enough, prior to this election he had zero interest in politics, declaring the whole thing to be meaningless. Somewhere recently he came to the conclusion that Obama was destroying the economy and registered to vote so he could vote for Romney. It's kind of mind-boggling.

They'll finally be able to pass a budget?

We can only hope.

Of course many forms of preferential voting, especially PR, would make partisan redistricting less effective.

Proportional representation should indeed have an effect, if only due to there being fewer districts. I don't think straight preferential voting would necessarily have much effect. We've certainly had majority governments that lost the popular vote (even with districting under control of a non-partisan body).

I think PR is worth pushing for at the state level, but I don't know if it could make much headway federally. The problem is the state sysstem. It makes all the Presidential and Senate races winner-take-all. (We have a kind of PR for our Senate, but we have six states each of which elects 12 Senators in two tranches. You'd have 600 Senators under that arrangement.) Even for the House of Reps, it'd be impractical for small states and I don't know if it could be 'sold' on what becomes a limited scope.

I'd find it interesting if the US did go there though. Then you'd have a PR House and single-member Senate seats, while Australia would have the reverse - single-member House seats and PR Senate representation. (And given the differences between a presidential and parliamentary system, I could almost make sense of it.)

Wallabies nommed my fingers. As did kangaroos. I have photo proof.Tomorrow I fall off the Internet for a while.

Yes, I know these were borderline domestic, but I got to scritch ears, I don't care!

SO JEALOUS

In my fantasy world where we get PR In the house (House sets its own election rules so constitutionly possible through straight legislation) we also get a constitutional Amendment that "House of Lords" the Senate - leaving it in existence but transferring all powers to the PR house. (There is provision in the constitutuion that no state can be stripped of equal representation in Senate without its own consent - basically unanimous consent for changes - so leave the Senate in existence two Senators per state, but eliminate all the power of the Senate - turn it into a decorative appendage. )

Oh, god, Typo, I so do not want to live in your fantasy world. The Senate is the only thing that keeps Congress from being mass insanity. You think the House would be more sane if we had preferential voting??