OT 2 party political system

PvK · #1 May 29th, 2003, 08:53 PM

The two-party system is basically tyranny by gang, in my opinion.

I think that with computers available to process votes, voters should be able to vote for as many candidates as they want for any position, and many people should be able to run.

That way, if the two big-party candidates are Hitler and Stalin, and the independents include someone likeable but no one thinks an independent can win, voters can vote for their big-party "lesser of two evils" as well as the likable independents, so the likable independents could win if they are in fact more liked than the two party evils, without people having to give up their choice of lesser big-party evil.

Of course, the two big parties are currently kept in power by this system, are perhaps in the pocket of megacorporate media, and the two party system is conventionally unquestioned. So, it may be a long road to reform.

There are however already some organizations trying to promote electoral reform more or less as I suggested.

PvK

Wanderer · #2 May 29th, 2003, 09:06 PM

Obligatory Simpsons' quotes:

Kent Brockman: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?

Kodos (as Bob Dole): It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way your planet is doomed....DOOMED!

Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from Senator Bob Dole!

...

Kang: It's true! We are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!

Man in Crowd: Well, I'm just going to vote for a third party!

Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!! HA HA HA HA!!!

Fyron · #3 May 29th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

I don't remember where I read it, but supposably George Washington warned against going to a 2 party system.

It was in his farewell speech at the end of his term.

He actually warned against the formation of political parties (factions, as he put them) period, not just a 2 party system. Most of the "founding fathers" warned against such things.

Phoenix-D · #4 May 29th, 2003, 11:31 PM

PvK, what exactly are you suggestion there? Variable votes? If someone doesn't come out on top, the votes for the losers are re-counted using the second selection?

Ex, there are four candiates A, B, C, and D.

Voter 1 picks, in this order:
A
C
D
B

His vote is first counted for A. If A doesn't have enough votes to win, Voter 1's vote becomes a vote for C. If C doesn't, D.

Narrew · #5 May 29th, 2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
I don't remember where I read it, but supposably George Washington warned against going to a 2 party system.

It was in his farewell speech at the end of his term. He actually warned against the formation of political parties (factions, as he put them) period, not just a 2 party system. Most of the "founding fathers" warned against such things.

And didn't Jefferson ignore it and start the 2 party system?

Fyron · #6 May 30th, 2003, 01:16 AM

Narrew, yeah, pretty much.

Damn that Jefferson!

PvK · #7 May 30th, 2003, 03:24 AM

I think there could be several ways to improve the voting system, but the one that seems most natural to me would be to have the votes be weighted equally, and a simple majority wins, in a single vote-casting. That is, everyone votes for all of the candidates whom they approve enough to want in office, and the one with the most approvals wins.

There should probably be a minimum. Perhaps a candidate needs at least, say, 50% approval to win.

If no one gets the required minimum vote, then I suppose it depends on whether it's considered more desirable to get someone elected immediately, or whether it's more desirable to insist that elected offcials get at least a certain minimum amount of approval. That might vary depending on the type of post.

If speed is desired, then maybe don't have a minimum, or make the minimum low, and just choose whoever got the highest approval, as long as it meets the low minimum.

If a minimum approval is considered more important, then perhaps hold a new election, and perhaps disqualify all the candidates from the first round, since none of them were approved by the required percentage of voters.

PvK

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
PvK, what exactly are you suggestion there? Variable votes? If someone doesn't come out on top, the votes for the losers are re-counted using the second selection?

Ex, there are four candiates A, B, C, and D.

Voter 1 picks, in this order:
A
C
D
B

His vote is first counted for A. If A doesn't have enough votes to win, Voter 1's vote becomes a vote for C. If C doesn't, D.