Alternatives to the current US presidential method.
Something I thought of a while back, instead of one president, we have an election for three.
How this works is we start off by having three categories with multiple candidates in each: Republicans, Democrats, and the current third-parties.
Every person votes for one from each category (or just one or two if they refuse to vote for anyone in the others).
The three groups will each have their winners (second-place goes to the relative VP positions for the categories). From here, you give the two with the most votes an equal amount of power. The third is there as a tie-breaker for when the other two disagree.
The Good: Makes it so we no longer have to "vote for the lesser of two evils". Gives more recognition and power to the third-parties.
The Bad: The general population's stubborn, and could easily be confused by it. What's to stop it from constantly being raised to more and more people beyond just three?
Any thoughts or other alternative ideas anyone else has?
That's sorta how we do it now - there are primaries, and then the general election. The idea is that the individual parties should pick their own candidates, so people usually only get to vote in one primary, which ever party they affiliate with the most.
I think they should do away with the electoral college and make each vote equal.
The two major parties are already too deeply entrenched in US politics. Anything that would give them further legal power would only make our situation worse.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
G. Washington, 1796
We need to get rid of the electoral college. That was created in the days that you couldn't just count votes instantaneously. With our current technology, we can have the vote counts on the day of the election (so long as they're not disputed like in 2000). By contrast, some people didn't even know who won for days or months after the election.
Personally, I feel that Cleisthenes' approach to government in Athens would benefit the US a lot. Electoral divisions were not continuous ... e.g., one division might have some city, some rural area, some distant territory ... he did that for a good reason. It busted special interests. If we used that approach here, it would be much more difficult for people to force the interests of their piss-ant region on the whole country, there'd probably be way less pork spending, etc.
_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"
The requirement for a contiguous district was imposed because the British Parliament had horribly abused non-contiguous districting. The Athenian approach is every bit as prone to corruption as the contiguous approach.
The requirement for a contiguous district was imposed because the British Parliament had horribly abused non-contiguous districting. The Athenian approach is every bit as prone to corruption as the contiguous approach.
How did they abuse it
_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"
Disclaimer: This is a simplistic point of view, and does not take into account the screwed-up mess that the Electoral Collage makes of the popular vote:
A two-party system almost guarantees that one or the other candidate will win with more than 50% of the popular vote.
In a three- or more-party system, it almost guarantees that one candidate will win with less than 50% of the popular vote.
For two or more candidates, the math is something like (1/n + .01)%, where 'n' is the number of candidates, and the result is the percentage needed to win. Thus:
2 candidates --> 51% to win
3 candidates --> 34% to win
4 --> 26%
5 --> 21%
.
.
.
With 100 candidates it would take only 2% of the popular vote to win, thus forcing the one candidate on the 98% of the population that did not want him to win.
Velkom to America, Komrade!
A two-party system almost guarantees that one or the other candidate will win with more than 50% of the popular vote.
In a three- or more-party system, it almost guarantees that one candidate will win with less than 50% of the popular vote.
For two or more candidates, the math is something like (1/n + .01)%, where 'n' is the number of candidates, and the result is the percentage needed to win. Thus:
2 candidates --> 51% to win
3 candidates --> 34% to win
4 --> 26%
5 --> 21%
.
.
.
With 100 candidates it would take only 2% of the popular vote to win, thus forcing the one candidate on the 98% of the population that did not want him to win.
Velkom to America, Komrade!
That's why there are run-off elections.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I say random lottery. What's that you say? We'll have incompetent leadership? OK, then no one will even be able to tell the difference and we save a shedload of time and money from those campaigns.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I say random lottery. What's that you say? We'll have incompetent leadership? OK, then no one will even be able to tell the difference and we save a shedload of time and money from those campaigns.
Honestly, it would probably work better. I really believe in what Douglas Adams said:
"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
LostInEmulation
Veteran
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,047
Location: Ireland, dreaming of Germany
I think a system like Instant Runoff Voting would be far far more democratic than the current one. The smaller 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th parties would profit from this system since a vote for a 3rd, 4th 5th or 6th party candidate is no longer automatically a 'lost' vote.
_________________
I am not a native speaker. Please contact me if I made grammatical mistakes in the posting above.
Penguins cannot fly because what cannot fly cannot crash!
I say random lottery. What's that you say? We'll have incompetent leadership? OK, then no one will even be able to tell the difference and we save a shedload of time and money from those campaigns.
You've read Chesterton, haven't you?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
17 awarded Presidential Medal Of Freedom |
05 Jan 2025, 6:34 pm |
North Korean Trash Balloon Hits Seoul's Presidential Compoun |
24 Oct 2024, 8:37 am |