Lets talk about the American Voting Sytem and how it should change

[Obelisk Kai]

That is a strength, it means we have to learn to compromise and work with eachother.

Yes when the system works it works well...well it works at least.

It hasn't worked that way since Clinton got into the White House.

You have a congressional political system operated by people who seem to think they are in a british parliamentary system which encourages confrontation.

[Waniou]

Then make a 3rd side, the system doesn't prevent you from doing so. The fact that you cant reach a critical threshold means your ideas are not very good.

That's not it at all. Let's say a left leaning third party arrives. There are a lot of disenfranchised voters who vote Democrat but they prefer the policies of the new party. So a bunch of them go and vote for them instead and the results of the election are...

49% Republican
41% Democrat
10% NewLeft.

Republicans win, despite a majority of voters wanting a left wing party. As a result, at the next election, people saw how poorly NewLeft did so don't vote for them and vote Democrat instead because they don't want Republicans to win.

It's a matter of mathematics. First Past the Post will always result in a two party system. It's nothing about ideas not being very good either. Let's say a bunch more people vote for NewLeft, and we get 41% for them and 10% for democrats. Next election, people bail on the Democrat party and we wind up with a two party Republican/NewLeft system instead.

- - - Updated - - -

See what I mean? Criticize the constitution and Americans get offended. It's become a TOTEM that you worship as a symbol of who you are rather than the document that organizes your state.

It is clearly hopelessly out date and can easily be improved with a constitution that, oh I don't know, facilitates actually getting something done?

P.S. Your counter-points are the definition of Strawmen. Nowhere did I say I hated your freedoms or that you need a dictator.

Fun things still in the US constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

That last underlined bit? It means slaves. The US constitution still has the three fifths compromise in it. I mean, yeah, slavery is now illegal but it's still kinda amusing that the US constitution still says how to deal with the votes of slaves.

[PC2]

That's not it at all. Let's say a left leaning third party arrives. There are a lot of disenfranchised voters who vote Democrat but they prefer the policies of the new party. So a bunch of them go and vote for them instead and the results of the election are...

49% Republican
41% Democrat
10% NewLeft.

Republicans win, despite a majority of voters wanting a left wing party. As a result, at the next election, people saw how poorly NewLeft did so don't vote for them and vote Democrat instead because they don't want Republicans to win.

It's a matter of mathematics. First Past the Post will always result in a two party system. It's nothing about ideas not being very good either. Let's say a bunch more people vote for NewLeft, and we get 41% for them and 10% for democrats. Next election, people bail on the Democrat party and we wind up with a two party Republican/NewLeft system instead.

Yes you are proving my point, it helps to prevent over-domination via party coalition. The point of politics is for all sides to work together, not to group up and demonize a particular side like they do in Europe.

[Felya]

That is a strength, it means we have to learn to compromise and work with eachother.

But, without a third option as a tie breaker, the compromise is often shit. If you think about it, if you are given either a turd or a sandwich, regardless how much of a sandwitch you are going to get... It's still going to be shit...

[Waniou]

Yes you are proving my point, it helps to prevent over-domination via party coalition. The point of politics is for all sides to work together, not to group up and demonize a particular side like they do in Europe.

I totally agree with that, but it's something that the US, especially in recent years, is failing miserably at. Two party systems tend to disenfranchise centrist voters because the two parties tend to wind up getting more polarised and I believe the US is the most polarised it's been in recent history.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to in Europe, but in New Zealand, we have about five or six major parties; National forming the major right wing party, Labour and Greens being the major left wing parties, Maori party and New Zealand First being the main-ish centre ones though people may disagree with my placement of those, and there a few others that pop up, such as United Future which currently exists for basically one party, Mana which was very left wing but made some poor decisions (ie, supporting Kim Dotcom) and kinda vanished in the last election but those are the main ones and, as far as I'm aware, since we had MMP, we've had no party have a full 50% majority in parliament. National's come very close in recent years, though I suspect their support will drop in the next election, but every ruling party since MMP was introduced in 1995 has had to have a coalition government which means they have to work together to get bills passed.

[Felya]

Yes when the system works it works well...well it works at least.

It hasn't worked that way since Clinton got into the White House.

You have a congressional political system operated by people who seem to think they are in a british parliamentary system which encourages confrontation.

Part of the problem is that letting an opponent party do anything that is extremely successful or popular, is a death kennel for you. We have lost the idea of both parties trying to do what is best for the country, but in different ways. We are at an impasse where you win by demonizing your opponents and inhibit their success... Not on personal merits...

[dwightyo39]

I'm gonna be blunt.

The American voting system is probably the worst in the democratic world and that includes first past the post constituencies in Parliamentary systems.

I mean it is freaking terrible. I almost believe you couldn't design a worse system if you tried.

Let's take a look at the why, shall we?

Your constitution. Americans seem to take some perverse pride that their constitution has endured so long with so little change. Other countries have ripped up and replaced their constitution when they found them no longer fit for purpose but the United States keeps chugging along with a document designed to govern an agrarian, rural republic with a vast frontier.

The usual defense of this archaic document is that it includes a mechanism for it's own update via amendments that should keep it relevant. The problem is the document is so difficult to amend that in these hyper polarised times the chances of any meaningful update are essentially zero.

So why the defense of the constitution? I hate to say it but I am of the opinion that it has been fetishized by a young nation that required a few totems, a few symbols of their own uniqueness that they could unify around. This emotional unity is so strong that even when the constitution to me looks like it is actually holding you back, nobody seriously debates replacing it. There are reasons Ruth Bader Ginsburg recommended to a foreign audience they NOT use the US constitution as a template. It's a really bad way to run a state.

It is the source of the original sin of your government's dysfunction. There is a heck of a lot wrong with how your Government is run and it leads back to your constitution and your own very American distrust of government. Your ancestors seemingly designed a system that would produce logjam and I am pretty sure it was deliberate. Change would be incremental, consensual and very, very slow. Perfect for a rural republic in the early 19th century...terrible for a continent spanning hyperpower in the early 21st.

And the electoral college for the US Presidency is one of the worst examples of the bad choices they may have deliberately made. I mean it deliberately hands power to just a few individuals within your system, not the hyper rich but those lucky enough to live in swing states. At a stroke you've disenfranchised the vast majority of the country because their votes are almost always taken for granted.

This leads to the result that candidates for the Presidency are not running for a national office. They are running to be the most popular politician in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania!

The ultimate indictment of the system is that it can allow an individual with fewer votes but more electors to win the Presidency. That should be a fatal flaw. It is a damning indictment it is not.

While there is a chance I might like a new constitution better, there is also a high probability it could be changed to something that would make my life horrible.

[PC2]

I totally agree with that, but it's something that the US, especially in recent years, is failing miserably at. Two party systems tend to disenfranchise centrist voters because the two parties tend to wind up getting more polarised and I believe the US is the most polarised it's been in recent history.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to in Europe, but in New Zealand, we have about five or six major parties; National forming the major right wing party, Labour and Greens being the major left wing parties, Maori party and New Zealand First being the main-ish centre ones though people may disagree with my placement of those, and there a few others that pop up, such as United Future which currently exists for basically one party, Mana which was very left wing but made some poor decisions (ie, supporting Kim Dotcom) and kinda vanished in the last election but those are the main ones and, as far as I'm aware, since we had MMP, we've had no party have a full 50% majority in parliament. National's come very close in recent years, though I suspect their support will drop in the next election, but every ruling party since MMP was introduced in 1995 has had to have a coalition government which means they have to work together to get bills passed.

Maori party? That type of thinking would be a disaster in the US, there would probably be 5 different demographic parties that would only divide up society and lead to worse politics.

[Waniou]

Maori party? That type of thinking would be a disaster in the US, there would probably be 5 different demographic parties that would only divide up society and lead to worse politics.

That's the name of the party. I believe they fractured from the Labour party in the early 2000s over a disagreement over a particular piece of legislation that they thought was unfair to Maori. While they're fairly left wnig, they've also been in coalition with National since National was elected.

But no, the system works fairly well. Most people support one particular party but more broadly support either Labour or National, those two being the two big left/right wing parties. People will vote for the party that they think best matches their own ideas while, in general, supporting one of the two big ones. For example, someone might like the Green's policies more than Labour but are fine with Labour winning the election and know that a vote for the Greens will support them.

[PC2]

But no, the system works fairly well.

No it doesn't work very well.

[Yamuri]

How about a coin flip? I mean apparently it's the way to go now. We could either have every person in the country flip a coin or just one person flip a coin for the whole country. Before all this madness though we should have a game show where we allow the candidates to answer questions as we judge their opinions. They have a limited time and there's a buzzer. A point system will be in the works indefinitely, but the media will have full control over the government at this moment. That won't matter because coins though.

[Waniou]

No it doesn't work very well.

Well, you've convinced me. How exactly does it not work well?

[PC2]

Well, you've convinced me. How exactly does it not work well?

It lets a side form that over-dominates via coalition.

[Gilgemesh]

I'd love to see them remove the current system and put in the "alternative vote" system.
That way, if your candidate can't win, your vote is transferred to your next favorite. So you can rank your candidates. This doesn't remove all inherent problems with voting systems, but it does stop the main problem--voting for who you like turns into a vote for who you hate.

[Waniou]

It lets a side form that over-dominates via coalition.

Not particularly. The fact that we've had a bunch of new parties form by parties fracturing from major ones (The aforementioned Maori, I believe Mana fractured from them, plus a few that no longer exist) shows that coalitions can, and do, break down. Like I said, the Maori party fractured from Labour (left wing) and have been in coalition with National (right wing) ever since.

[PC2]

Not particularly. The fact that we've had a bunch of new parties form by parties fracturing from major ones (The aforementioned Maori, I believe Mana fractured from them, plus a few that no longer exist) shows that coalitions can, and do, break down. Like I said, the Maori party fractured from Labour (left wing) and have been in coalition with National (right wing) ever since.

I'm not impressed.

Our voting system is not a problem, it isn't changing anytime soon.

[Felya]

I'd love to see them remove the current system and put in the "alternative vote" system.
That way, if your candidate can't win, your vote is transferred to your next favorite. So you can rank your candidates. This doesn't remove all inherent problems with voting systems, but it does stop the main problem--voting for who you like turns into a vote for who you hate.

You are pretty much describing primaries.

[Gilgemesh]

You are pretty much describing primaries.

Not quite. Primaries help pick which candidates from a party you'd like to see. But what if the person you like can't win? What happens when the next best is in another party during the final vote? The electoral college gives your vote to whatever is majority in your state, winner take all. But your vote in one state has more value than a vote in another state. They should do without the Electoral college and count votes individually, then allow alternative votes, so people who align with candidates who will probably lose can still vote for their second favorite. It's not 2 or 3 votes per person, its just a redistribution of votes based on what the voter wants in stead of those minority votes helping to promote a person they may not want.

[Deleted]

For one you need more parties.
You only have 2 flavours:
conservative extremists Or liberal hippie douches.

Theres alot more flavours. We have 17 parties in our parlement. ON 17.000.000 people.
Im sure you can do better.

[Kellhound]

Return to the original requirements to vote for one. Ban political parties.