OT 2 party political system

[Wanderer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Narrew, yeah, pretty much. Damn that Jefferson!

[PvK]

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

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.

[tbontob]

PvK, I think what Phoenix-D was trying to point out (without saying it), is that with that system, someone will get the majority of votes.