Two Party Politics - How should we elect our leaders?

[Trebuchet]

I've always wanted a "None of the above" option. If NotA wins the vote, you have another election, and all the candidates who ran in the original are barred from running again*. Make the parties find candidates that people actually want to vote for, not just candidates they're reluctantly willing to vote for because those are the options they've been given.

*They're certainly barred from this election cycle. We can discuss the merits of banning them from a certain number of future elections as well.

Who are you and why are you able to read my mind? I've been saying that for years, aside from the asterisk -- they should be barred from any election ever.

In my state, we used to have "wide open" primaries. You could vote for anyone from any party. The big parties didn't like that and filed federal lawsuits. That led to a "pick-a-party" primary, where you had to choose only one party ballot. The voters HATED that. Now it's a "top-two" system, where the top two vote getters go on to the general election. In most cases, that's an R and a D, although in some heavily slanted districts it can be two of the same party. In any case, it means that minor parties are utterly excluded from the general election, which was exactly the outcome desired by the big parties when they filed suit.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree that the U.S. needs a strong 2-party system.

No, no and furthermore. No.

The US, like the UK, needs a strong voting system.

First of all, I think my statement (I was one of the people who said the U.S. the 'needs a strong 2-party system') may have either been misunderstood or taken out of context.

When I talk about the need for a '2 party system', I was referring to the problem if/when one of the major political parties collapses. (For example, if demographic shifts in the future make it almost impossible for the Republicans to gain power, on account of their racism.) That particular situation is not desirable since its possible for one party to become complacent.

The two party system is fundamentally broken and the FPTP voting system that we use gives us two party politics, and that shortchanges us a lot.

You are right in that the political system in the U.S. is "broken" in several ways. However, that isn't necessarily due to 2 party politics. Its more due to a lack of integrity and racism on the part of one of the parties.

Voting is like a false dichotomy. Vote red or vote blue. Don't like either candidate? tough.

If instead people could vote red, blue, purple, yellow, orange or green then our governments would more accurately represent the electorate, filibustering and rabid partisanship and gerrymandering is much harder to accomplish.

There are advantages and disadvantages to 2 party and 3+ party politics.

Yes, multiple parties would mean that you could vote for a representative that best reflects your preferences. But, it also means things like vote-splitting and coalitions (where your preferred party may enter into a coalition that you might not agree with, or where minor parties receive more influence than the popular vote suggests they deserve.) At least with a 2-party system, you know that the your vote is your vote. Vote splitting is minimal.

As for the other issues...
- Filibustering is not necessarily a bad thing... it is a way that forces a certain amount of bipartisanship and compromise
- Gerrymandering is a problem, but I don't think its strictly due to the 2 party system. (You could easily get gerrymandering under a multi-party system if a coalition decides to team up.)

If you look at the US and the UK there are presently no stand out candidates from any party that you think "hey they'd make a great President/PM" I think that's also a symptom of 2 party politics.

Canada has a 4 party system (3 major federal, 1 regional) that doesn't really have any stand-out candidate either.

If a given party had to beat out several other parties that all had reasonable chances of being elected then you would need to focus more on positive campaigning to point out what you would do to help, rather than negative campaigning and belittling the other party, as there is now more than one main rival party.

Canada has 4 parties. Trust me... there is more than a little negative campaigning.

And it should be pointed out that negative campaign ads are not totally evil. They can force politicians to clarify their policies.

 

[lionking]

I like Australia’s preferential voting system. It (usually) results in a clear winner between the two major parties with no need for awkward and often ridiculous coalitions. We also usually have close elections, with the current government having only a one (or maybe two) seat majority. Minor parties have their day in the sun in the Senate. I don’t think there is any appetite for change to the system here.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed.

Problem is "First Fast the Post" voting inevitably leads to two party systems.

"We need more than two parties" and "We need a different election system" are the same problem.

- No Gerrymandering (shortest split line algorithm to determine voting districts) and some form of instant runoff / ranked choice voting.

- People should able to vote for the person the agree with / support the most without fear of siphoning votes off from a more likely candidate that they agree with... mostly.

- Your vote shouldn't count less because you are surrounded by people who vote another way. A Democrat's vote in Texas (or a Republican's vote in California) should matter to the election as much as a Democrats vote in California (or a Republican's vote in Texas.)

All that said this is all... arguments in the margins as long as nearly half the elecorate never bothers to show up for an election. Technically speaking a Mr. John B. Didnotvote Esq. has been the rightful President of the United States since right before the Civil War

True, but there is no fix for the person who does not want to vote. To make somebody who is not interested in politics and is totally ignorant about current events vote would just make matters worse.
Manadatory voting sucks....and I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary.

 

[Craig4]

If you could go to a runoff system where everyone is running against everyone the parties don't matter as much. The party bases hold huge sway over who they nominate now. In a runoff, you can't play to your base and the independents and the swing voters. You'd have to play to the moderate middle. It would largely prevent the two parties picking their two extremes and independents choosing which one they like less.

 

[psionl0]

- No Gerrymandering (shortest split line algorithm to determine voting districts) and some form of instant runoff / ranked choice voting.

Definitely runoff voting for the POTUS. The electoral college or House of Representatives should not have the final say. This is a bigger issue than whether it is a straight national vote or whether state based vote weighting remains. What is important is that in no state should it be "winner takes all".

As for the HoR, the best way to end gerrymandering would be to use an MMP system similar to that used in NZ. This should be on a state by state basis (with perhaps special considerations for the very small states).

 

[Segnosaur]

As for the HoR, the best way to end gerrymandering would be to use an MMP system similar to that used in NZ. This should be on a state by state basis (with perhaps special considerations for the very small states).

Actually I think the best way to end gerrymandering would simply be to pass a law (or constitutional amendment) requiring all district lines to be drawn by a non-partisan group. Its a much smaller change than going to an MMP system and as such would probably be easier to enact.

There are advantages and disadvantages to MMP. Some of the disadvantages:

- While it does cut down on the benefits of gerrymandering, it does not totally eliminate it (since you still have the one vote that goes towards the local 'district' representative, and its still beneficial to gerrymander to get those seats even if you can't gerrymander the second seat.)

- There is the chance that the second proportional vote might be filled with people who are hard to remove in the case of incompetence (since they are beholden to the party only and not the electors)

 

[lomiller]

That is not true either. It is virtually impossible for somebody to do a transaction against a wallet or alter a wallet transaction without possessing the user's private "key". The same goes for tampering with votes and digital voting cards.

Bitcoin exchanges have been compromised on a fairly regular basis, with losses at todays prices that amount to tens of billions of dollars.

There have been more since this was written.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/a-brief-history-of-bitcoin-hacks-and-frauds/

 

[Venom]

Candidates are pre-selected for education requirements.

They must demonstrate that they are fit for office and have taken the necessary crash courses in economics, geography, and U.S. history provided by the State Department or CIA.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Candidates are pre-selected for education requirements.

They must demonstrate that they are fit for office and have taken the necessary crash courses in economics, geography, and U.S. history provided by the State Department or CIA.

Not a chance. There's too much of an anti-elite, lionization of the working class thing in America.

Hell before Trump pretty much every single one of our Presidential elections in modern history where two ultra-rich, old money, Ivy League educated, connected old white dudes trying to convince the country how much of a salt of the Earth yokel they were.

 

[dudalb]

The past ten years have soured me on the Two Party system. Time to move to a multi party system in the US.

 

[PhantomWolf]

We have quite a few parties. The problem is nobody except for the Democrats or the Republicans can draw a significant amount of votes. So people suggest IRV or some other scheme. The idea seems to be that lots of folks would vote for Green Party candidates but they're just too doggone concerned that would result in the Republican winning. I think the actual number of those people is pretty miniscule, but suppose Jill Stein gets 10% in the first round. What does that actually mean? She's still not going to become president, her party still isn't going to win any seats.

This is why systems such as Alternative Vote would be a better system for the Presidential vote. With this you could rank the Candidates, and so more people would feel that they could vote for a 3rd party Candidate without the risk of splitting the vote should they fail to have the numbers.

So people will suggest proportional representation: That if the Greens get 10% of the votes they should get 10% of the seats. But proportional representation inevitably means that some districts will be represented by candidates that were largely rejected by that district in the actual election. Effectively it means indirect elections--certainly less democratic.

Possibly true if say MMP was used, where half the representatives would be chosen via a party list. However there are other ways. STV for instance generally creates a more proportional system with representatives that most people like.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But proportional representation inevitably means that some districts will be represented by candidates that were largely rejected by that district in the actual election.

You know that already happens, right?

Effectively it means indirect elections--certainly less democratic.

Less democratic than each voter getting a representative of their choosing. Oh wait...

The truth is, 90% vote on party on lines anyway - the actual candidates don't matter. Which is how we like it. Most people don't really want democracy - they just want their party in power. If that means having less democracy then so be it!

 

[Venom]

Not a chance. There's too much of an anti-elite, lionization of the working class thing in America.

Hell before Trump pretty much every single one of our Presidential elections in modern history where two ultra-rich, old money, Ivy League educated, connected old white dudes trying to convince the country how much of a salt of the Earth yokel they were.

Well then elitism and being out of touch with the middle class would be the problem, rather than essential education.

 

[Brainster]

This is why systems such as Alternative Vote would be a better system for the Presidential vote. With this you could rank the Candidates, and so more people would feel that they could vote for a 3rd party Candidate without the risk of splitting the vote should they fail to have the numbers.

First, the obvious; whom is this going to help? Third parties, you say? I cannot for the life of me imagine how the Democrats and Republicans could fail to go along with it.

Possibly true if say MMP was used, where half the representatives would be chosen via a party list. However there are other ways. STV for instance generally creates a more proportional system with representatives that most people like.

So all we have to do is triple the number of congress critters? Brilliant!

 

[PhantomWolf]

First, the obvious; whom is this going to help? Third parties, you say? I cannot for the life of me imagine how the Democrats and Republicans could fail to go along with it.

Our main parties went along with switching from FPTP to MMP. It's a case of the public pushing for it.

So all we have to do is triple the number of congress critters? Brilliant!

No, you didn't pay attention. You take three current Districts and join them together, then have three Representatives for the larger combined district. You end up with the same number of Representatives, but a third the number of districts.

 

[Brainster]

Our main parties went along with switching from FPTP to MMP. It's a case of the public pushing for it.

Things like this may get done; Maine apparently passed IRV via referendum, although the governor was strongly opposed and tried not to implement it; the battle has been ongoing this year. And I am in favor of other states trying it out and seeing what happens.

No, you didn't pay attention. You take three current Districts and join them together, then have three Representatives for the larger combined district. You end up with the same number of Representatives, but a third the number of districts.

Okay I stand corrected. Has it been implemented anywhere?

 

[psionl0]

Actually I think the best way to end gerrymandering would simply be to pass a law (or constitutional amendment) requiring all district lines to be drawn by a non-partisan group. Its a much smaller change than going to an MMP system and as such would probably be easier to enact.

Neither system will ever get up. However, nothing in the constitution prevents the use of MMP. It just says ". . . chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . ." but not how.

You would have to amend the constitution to give the congress the power to make laws about elections before there was any real prospect of reform.

There are advantages and disadvantages to MMP. Some of the disadvantages:

- While it does cut down on the benefits of gerrymandering, it does not totally eliminate it (since you still have the one vote that goes towards the local 'district' representative, and its still beneficial to gerrymander to get those seats even if you can't gerrymander the second seat.)

I don't understand your point. If a state has 10 members elected from single member electorates and 6 members from a list then a party that got 50% of the vote might be able to rig the election so that it wins 7 of the 10 seats but because it is only entitled to 8 members overall, it would only get 1 member from the list.

- There is the chance that the second proportional vote might be filled with people who are hard to remove in the case of incompetence (since they are beholden to the party only and not the electors)

This is true regardless of the voting system employed.
In single member electorates, there will be a number of safe seats which a donkey could win for the party and never be removed. This is true whether FPTP or AV voting is employed.

In multi-member electorates elected by PR, the candidates at the top of the list always get elected even if they are unpopular.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The past ten years have soured me on the Two Party system. Time to move to a multi party system in the US.

Works great at getting Paul LePage as govenor of Maine. That is the kind of quality racist leadership that could be brought to more of america by this.

With out restructuring the voting process we are stuck with a two party system. And no way the political parties are going to let their power be destroyed by reworking the voting system.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We have quite a few parties. The problem is nobody except for the Democrats or the Republicans can draw a significant amount of votes.

The problem is that not that, the problem is that having a third party weakens the party it most aligns with. See how Paul LePage won with such a small percent (37.6%).