[Paul]

I know we try not to get too political here, but I believe this is a very significant issue and honestly don't understand why there isn't more of a drive to try and fix it (at least from the regular people... I know why the two political parties like it.)

http://www.moveonpac.org/repairthevote/

has a small "petition" where they will send a letter on your behalf to your congressperson and senators. I suggest reading it over and taking a few minutes to fill it out.

Where I stand:
I think the currently plurality election system is a scam and it causes voters to choose between "the lesser of two evils" this is inherently a bad thing as it causes the choices to get worse and worse as time goes on. I'm sure you can all agree with at least part of that feeling. There are easily implemented solutions that noone is talking about. There are also more complicated options that have some popular support which actually make the problem worse.

Ideally, elections would be run using the condorcet system, but it will take a while for something like that to get through congress...

The first step is getting something like condorcet or approval voting instituted locally, but letting our federal representatives know of some better alternatives is not a bad thing either.

I know some people have issues with moveon.org's stances on some issues... but how could you not want to improve our democracy and attempt to prevent it from falling further into a duopoly that is currently being enforced by dems and repubs?

I don't care if you never go to the site again, but I think this could really make a difference.

oh, and to balance out that moveon link, here is a link to the www.electionmethods.org creator's homepage: http://russp.org/

[Kickaha]

Hear, frickin' hear.

This is probably the biggest flaw in our entire democratic election system, and unless it is resolved, we're headed down a very bad path.

FWIW, I agree with almost nothing that MoveOn touts. I think that in most things they are quite off their rocker... but this? Hell yes. Right, left, capitalist, socialist... it doesn't matter, this affects all of us equally.

[Wraven]

Kickaha,
I agree. MoveOn's usual message and I don't usually mix, but I do agree that the election system is about 200 years out of date.

[Paul]

So, do the rest of you just not care?
What happened to the sentiments of this thread?

America will change drastically for the worse if the country doesn't get back on track...

[HOM]

If there were real demand for serious reforms (overhauls) of the election system we would have them.

[Paul]

Don't put the cart before the horse... the reality is that the majority of the American People are completely oblivious to the benefits that would arise from a fair election system--they don't even realize that there is a problem. Does that mean they don't want it? Does that mean the system is hopelessly flawed?
No
Change has to start somewhere.

[thegelding]

i think maybe we should invade ourselves to demand a true democracy

(joking slightly....but if some countries tried to "fix the books" and make up things like electoral colleges and no paper trail ballots, we would call into question that they were a democracy.....

one person, one vote and count every one....

i think we need a national election...a single piece of paper with just the presidental canidates, no other people, no amendments...you have a month to vote....they can do all the local elections also at the same time, with all the other garbage, but the presidental election should be a ballot all to its self....and get rid of the electoral college...i don't care what arguments you make for it, unless every vote counts as a single vote and all the votes are counted together and counted equally, then we do not have true democratic elections)

g

[thegelding]

i signed up and sent a nice, but kinda lengthy, note to be sent to my representatives

g

[Dave]

Originally Posted by thegelding [snip]i don't care what arguments you make for it, unless every vote counts as a single vote and all the votes are counted together and counted equally, then we do not have true democratic elections)

That's because we (at least those of us in the US) live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. I have no idea what all these politicians are smoking when they talk about democracy this and democracy that, because the USA is most certainly not a democracy.

This has nothing to do with my political affiliations or lack thereof. Go look up the definitions and tell me which one our federal system more closely resembles.

[staph]

My thoughts on the issue are a matter of record, but I wonder if I should muddy the waters a little and suggest that as well as modifying the voting system, that a major modification of the system of representation would be helpful as well.

Single member electorates*… well, they're inherently majoritarian. They make it extremely difficult for minority groups and interests to get any representation at all. Converting one or both of the houses of Congress to full PR might be a good idea… if you're interested in a truly pluralistic democracy.

Even with the supposedly flawed single transferable vote system in Australia, and only limited PR in the Senate (PR per state, rather than for the whole House), more than 10% of the seats in the Senate are held by minor parties.

*to be quite honest, I'm not 100% sure how Senators are elected in the States…

[Kickaha]

Condorcet voting makes it much easier for small groups to end up being placed in the seat, *if* they are indeed a best-compromise for the general populace.

Condorcet is the only way to go. It finds best compromises, instead of artificially creating a duality with no real choice.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by thegelding one person, one vote and count every one.... g

Yes but the stupid people always outnumber the intelligent ones in any country!!!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by thegelding one person, one vote

That's the problem. Or rather, the problem is that everyone is required to reduce their multitude of complex opinions to *ONE* vote. This is really in idiotic thing to do, if you stop and think about it.

People complain about the two-party duopoly we have now, the lack of choice, and the extreme rhetoric being flung about, never realizing that they are the *natural* result of one-person-one-vote.

Think it through. Start with a number of smaller factions, like we used to have in this country. Each looks around, and realize that if they partnered with *that* other party, they could collectively have more votes, and get more seats. Huzzah! So they all start doing it, until you end up with exactly two parties. This is just the inevitable conclusion.

Then, each party looks at how to get the most votes. Well, the endpoints of the political spectrum are easy, just mouth off a lot about 'family values' or 'civil rights', and voila, you've got them without any real work. There's your extreme rhetoric.

It's the middle voters that are the problem area. So the two parties go to work trying to sway them, by eating into each other's constituency, and it turns out that, for the day to day operations, the two parties start looking exactly the same. There's your lack of choice.

And the stable point? 50/50 +/- some tiny amount that will be contested in every election of note.

One person, one vote is what GOT us into this mess.

Instead, think of it this way: "One person, *ONE OPINION*". Now I don't know about you, but I'd rather be able to express that opinion at the voting booth in all its complexity and glory.

Enter Condorcet voting. You really should read up on it.

It's ridiculously easy. Think of going to a restaurant, and being given a menu. You get to pick one thing off of it. If they don't happen to have it (maybe their delivery didn't get there that day, maybe they sold out), then you get *nothing*. You don't eat. You get one shot, no second choice. Pretty stupid sounding, isn't it?

That's our current system. You toss in one selection, and if your candidate didn't get selected, you don't get represented at *all*. Tough luck, buddy.

Now imagine the same restaurant with a simple change: you get to give them a list of possible meals. "I'll have the pot roast, but if you don't have that, I'll take the roast chicken. If you're out of that too, I can live with a salad." You may not get your *first* choice, but no matter what they're out of, you get to eat, *and* it's something that you chose, even indirectly.

That's Condorcet voting. It's just that easy. First pick, second, pick, etc. You vote once, your vote counts just as much as anyone else's no matter what ranking you put candidates in (or even how many you vote for), and the end result is the candidate that best meets the desires of the *entire* population. And really, isn't that what voting is supposed to do? Find a way of representing the opinions and desires of the *entire* population, not just 50%?

i think we need a national election...a single piece of paper with just the presidental canidates, no other people, no amendments...you have a month to vote....they can do all the local elections also at the same time, with all the other garbage, but the presidental election should be a ballot all to its self....

A National election isn't a horrifically bad idea... except that it's directly unconstitutional, in the precise definition of the word. Look it up.

and get rid of the electoral college...i don't care what arguments you make for it, unless every vote counts as a single vote and all the votes are counted together and counted equally, then we do not have true democratic elections)

We don't anyway, we have a democratically elected republic. The electoral college is still, IMO, an important vehicle for that representation, with one change: one electoral vote should reflect the winner of each Congressional District, to give it better fine tuning than the 'winner take all of each state' crap we have now. That's where we got our idiotic swing states from, and why candidates spend all their time in some states, and ignore everyone else. Move to District-based electoral votes, and those go away. Mass plurality voting at the national level is a really bad idea... ever hear of 'tyranny of the majority'? Urban areas would decide policy for the nation, including areas (such as rural farming) that they know nothing about. That's a really stupid way to run a society.

[billybobsky]

272.5 votes per individual. The .5 vote is decided by an arm wrestling match against each cannidate in a round robin style tournament.

[wuf]

A National election isn't a horrifically bad idea... except that it's directly unconstitutional, in the precise definition of the word. Look it up.

Which word exactly do you want us to look up? National? Election? Unconstitutional? I don't think that any of these terms are defined in Websters as you say it......

Now imagine the same restaurant with a simple change: you get to give them a list of possible meals. "I'll have the pot roast, but if you don't have that, I'll take the roast chicken. If you're out of that too, I can live with a salad." You may not get your *first* choice, but no matter what they're out of, you get to eat, *and* it's something that you chose, even indirectly.

Personally, I wouldn't go to a restaurant that didn't serve all the food on the menu. The menu should be fixed and the manager fired.

I just want a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" (even though I actually did).

-wuf

[BlueRabbit]

Originally Posted by Kickaha People complain about the two-party duopoly we have now, the lack of choice, and the extreme rhetoric being flung about, never realizing that they are the *natural* result of one-person-one-vote.

Actually, it's possible to have a ton of parties while still having one vote per person. It's actually the first-past-the-post plurality election system we have that makes the two party system, for the reasons you talked about. This is known as Duverger's Law.

However, the only solution isn't necessarily Condorcet voting – France has one vote per person, but way more political parties than the US, all over the political spectrum. This is because they use a proportional system for their legislature, and so parties don't have to merge in order to get enough votes to win an election. They just get seats based on how many votes they get overall.