Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.

Read.

[Devling]

The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.

Read.

Read-ed.

Okay, that could work. I was thinking in terms of the current US system of election, which really needs to be revised, but I like the idea of an instant runoff vote.
If the US started counting individual ballots, and we eliminated the Electoral College, and used runoff voting, I think the election would be a better system.

[Pnx]

Or there's systems where you have a "gold/silver/bronze" vote, the gold one being worth three points, the silver being worth two, the bronze three one. Then the person with the most points wins. I'm not sure how much I like this one, but almost anything other than this winner takes all stuff would be nice.

Then of course you can get rid of the candidates themselves in voting, and instead vote for the parties themselves then divide the seats in you congressional body based on how much of the popular vote they get.
Personally I'd like to see congress picked out like this, perhaps in combination with some kind of different voting scheme would be nice.

[Sirus]

Shouldn't bronze be worth 1 point?

[Devling]

the bronze three

Is that a typo or a part of the idea?

[Pnx]

No it was a typo, whoops.

[10ebbor10]

Or there's systems where you have a "gold/silver/bronze" vote, the gold one being worth three points, the silver being worth two, the bronze three one. Then the person with the most points wins. I'm not sure how much I like this one, but almost anything other than this winner takes all stuff would be nice.

That would still be a first past the post system. You're just changing how much votes each person has, not how they are counted.

[Pnx]

Sort of yes, but it does allow more than two people to run competitively. I was basically just naming it as an example of how there are more than one way to run this sort of thing, I don't especially like that sort of system, however like I said, I'd take it over the simple one vote representation thing.

[scriver]

Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.

It had to be done. We will remember your sacrifice always.

[Sirus]

Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.

Now watch as some anti-gay type uses that joke and thinks it's genuinely clever.
_{I got a chuckle out of it}

[MonkeyHead]

Head of Google complains about civilian drone tech as an invasion of privacy. Irony level of 11 detected.

[PanH]

Ban RC planes equipped with cameras !

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).

Read.

This guy has videos on that subject.

I'm guessing we have all already seen this video? Yes? Good.

It does seem a better system, but 3 things:
1. We'd have to implement this on all levels of legislative protocol, otherwise we'd see the same old behavior occurring on the senate floor, with the new mixed-representative voting body creating their very own two-party system in miniature.
2. Not even these alternatives would be impervious to meta-voting; trying to list people you don't want knocked out early as your first choice (or something of the like) might lead to unforeseen consequences.
3. How'ld we change the system? This would still require a constitutional convention-kind-of-deal, and jesus would that be hairy. Not to mention actually getting support for it, and convincing the reps it's a good idea etc.

[SalmonGod]

unforeseen consequences.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people make "unforeseen consequences" style points against things as if there aren't already-existing examples of them in other parts of the world that have been in effect for decades or more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It would just take an amendment, and the representatives could be convinced by the rationale that it gives them a better chance of success while also showing their constituents how pro-democracy they are.

Also, IRV has already been used in the United States.