Alternative voting

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I was watching Bill Maher interview Jesse Ventura (insert disparaging joke here) when they brought up an interesting concept: alternative voting, or instant-runoff voting. Basically, say you wanted to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. What you do is put down two picks, first Nader and then Al Gore, so that your vote doesn't go on to help out Bush. If Nader doesn't get enough votes then it goes to Gore.

I think one of the biggest problems in the US is our two party system. It's corrupt but hard to stop because of our all-or-nothing voting systems. We often don't vote for the person we REALLY want because we're afraid he can't win, and therefore our vote will be wasted.

I think we'd be better off if we had the GOP, the Dems, another conservative party (the Tea Party?), the Green Party, Libertarians, and others all a part of our national government. This way it's a more accurate representation of the views of the country, and it'll force them to compromise more often to get things done.

I think another thing that needs to be thrown out is our Electoral College system. The Presidency needs to be a straight up popular vote, having up to half of a state's votes not count seems to oppose the idea of a democracy.

So, do you think alternative voting could be a viable option? If not how else can we end our two-party system in America? Or do you think we even need to?

Comments

[prisoner--24601.livejournal.com]

I think another thing that needs to be thrown out is our Electoral College system. The Presidency needs to be a straight up popular vote, having up to half of a state's votes not count seems to oppose the idea of a democracy.

This is because the United States not a democracy (despite all of the political rhetoric otherwise), we're a constitutional republic. The founding fathers set it up this way for quite specific reasons, mainly because they thought democracies had a tendency to go bad really, really easy.

There are a lot of really compelling reasons for the electoral collage, mainly that it allows all states to get proportional representation in the national election. If you want for a straight up popular vote, the presidential candidates would simply pander to the most populated areas of the country and tailor all of their policies accordingly. Not that it's likely to happen since it would take a constitutional amendment to change it anyway.

I do like the idea of runoff voting, and I am not a fan of the two party system, but I'm guessing that it's so ingrained into our political culture now that it won't ever change.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

This is because the United States not a democracy
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone split this hair. A republic is a form of democracy. A republic is a democratic government, one determined by the people, as opposed to a monarchy, a theocracy, etc.

What you're thinking of is a direct democracy.

As far as the states go, they get their representatives through Congress. The Electoral College is an antiquated system that serves no real purpose.

[prisoner--24601.livejournal.com]

Democracies and Republics are two different things and have two very different purposes. The purpose of a democracy is to empower the majority (which is what you want to do with having a direct vote, right?). Republics are about protecting the minority from the majority (which is what the electoral college does). And that's the real point here. The founding fathers set up a constitutional republic instead of a representative democracy for a reason: they didn't want the majority interests to be able to barrel over the minority interests. That is what would happen if we had a flat up popular vote election for the President, and that is why they quite purposefully set the system up the way it is.

As far as the states go, they get their representatives through Congress.

Yeah. And? They also get a say in who is going to be President, as they should.

The Electoral College is an antiquated system that serves no real purpose.

Except for keeping the President from campaigning and pandering to the highest population areas of the country and ignoring the people in less populated areas. Except for making sure each state has a say in who gets to be president instead of the top five or ten most populated ones.

We'd be better off keeping the electoral college, but getting rid of the winner take all system that most states have. Splitting the electoral votes according to the way the population voted a the state would make much more sense than getting rid of the system entirely.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Even back in the days of Classical Greek culture, the Athenians set up strict controls to prevent mob rule. For one thing, Citizenship was how one got to be in the electorate, let alone rule. Athenian citizens were the rich, wealthy male landowners, and not at all the entirety of the female and poor male population, let alone the slaves. Solon set up a system with sharp limits on the power of the Boule/Council because he didn't want a deteroriation into mob rule, which had connotations every bit as anarchistic to a well-educated Ancient as it did to the founders.

Where the Roman Republic had checks and balances more ornate than the USA today does, but was still very much a society of, by, and for the rich.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Democracies and Republics are two different things and have two very different purposes
Nope, once again you are confusing Direct Democracy with Democracy. Republic is just a type of Democracy.

Yeah. And? They also get a say in who is going to be President, as they should.
Their people get to decide who is going to be President, at least THEY should.

Except for keeping the President from campaigning and pandering to the highest population areas of the country and ignoring the people in less populated areas.</i. Oh please they all get a voice, and a vote. What's happening right now is the minority in each state doesn't.

[prisoner--24601.livejournal.com]

You're completely and utterly missing the point I've been making about democracies vs. republics. If you define "democracy" with such a watered down definition as "a government determined by the people" then yes, you're right most forms of governments are democracies and it's a completely meaningless term.

But really, were just screwing around playing semantic games. The real point is that in our Republic, we have built in safeguards to protect the minority from the majority. The electoral college is one of them. We should keep it.

Their people get to decide who is going to be President, at least THEY should.

Their people already do decide who gets to be president, when they vote for one every four years. The electoral college doesn't negate this.

Oh please they all get a voice, and a vote. What's happening right now is the minority in each state doesn't.

Even if this is actually true and you're totally right, you don't have to get rid of the electoral college to fix it. You just have to split the electoral votes that each state gives out along the popular vote amongst that state. So why not just do that? Because frankly, you've got a snowball's chance in hell of passing a constitutional amendment, where as the split amongst the electoral vote can be put into effect by a change in state law.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I agree it's purely a semantics issue, but you're the one that brought it up. As far as splitting the electoral votes, I'd be for that as well.

And yes I know the odds of it happening are astronomical, but I think the more that people hear that we have alternatives (pun intended) to our voting systems then the idea may gain traction.

Should we give up every idea out there just because it may be difficult to do? Of course not.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The definitions of democracy and republic were quite different back when Rome was ruled by 2 consuls and Athens was governed by the reforms of Solon.

Today is a vastly different time. The only meaning of a republic is a society without a monarchy, which means that the USSR, Zimbabwe, and the USA are/were all "republics."

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

...the presidential candidates would simply pander to the most populated areas of the country and tailor all of their policies accordingly.

They already do this, except for swing states (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/2004CampaignAttention.png).