|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:44 pm
So, in one of my classes, we were talking about voting, and how people sometimes vote for people whose ideas they don't really believe in, but feel they must.
Example: My teacher in this class agrees with the ideas of a Libertarian candidate more, but has found that the Libertarian party splits the Democratic vote, and causes the Rebublican candidate, whose views she completely opposes, to rise into office. So, now she feels she has to vote Democrat rather than the party she truly believes in.
There are also people who vote for candidates based on traits that have nothing to do with their office, like voting for a guy whose hair looks better.
So, my question is, what can be done to encourage people to vote for the candidate they truly think will do the best job for the people? And discourage them from just voting for who they think will have a better chance of winning, or who looks better?
I have two solutions that will at least help the situation. One is giving more information about the candidates to voters. In some states, citizens get information about the candidates and their party platform mailed to them. (we don't get this in my state, and I have no idea why). This would help give voters a clear idea of what each candidate believes in.
My other idea is somewhat radical-sounding. I feel the whole party system should just be completely abolished. If someone wants to know what the general stance a candidate has on issues, it should be done on the liberal-to-conservative scale (ex: "I'm a moderate-conservative" or "I'm a very liberal") I know it sounds a bit extreme, but after all, George Washington himself advised against creating a party system (or, technically, a two-party system) as that would divide the nation. And I agree with this point.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
I'm not sure that there isn't already enough info out there to make an informed decision, but more can't hurt.
I, too, oppose the party system. Any candidate must chose between the Two parties, or resign to failure. That's how it's been for years.
The other problem with parties, is finances. They are profitable. This only adds additional pressure to heavily pressured positions. It's a wonder if any State and federal elected officials aren't corrupt.
I just realized how much it would further our interests to abolish the party system as we know it: Fairer elections and less corruption, that would be amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:50 am
It would be.
The difficulty then becomes how many people should run for presidency? At the beginning, I suppose it's whoever wants to, but then after each... I'm gonna call it a "round" of voting, how many should it be narrowed down to?
What are other countries' systems of voting? I'm only familiar with the American system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:38 pm
One of my favorite political blogs, I Drew This (www.idrewthis.org) has this to say on the subject: Quote: # Third parties are irrelevant (except as spoilers). The nature of the U.S. electoral system is to create two-party rule. In the case of Presidential elections, this is simply a function of how voting works -- two candidates with similar ideologies will split the vote, causing the remaining candidate to get a plurality and take the election. This same principle operates in Congressional elections, as well -- with the added feature that the rare independent or third-party candidate who does manage to get elected will have to caucus with one of the two major parties in order to accomplish anything. This is because of the committees, where much of the work of legislating actually gets done, and which the two major parties divide up based on who currently has a majority. Voting for a third party as a protest vote is easy, and feels good. Since your candidate has no chance of winning, no matter what happens you get to disclaim any responsibility by saying, "don't blame me -- I voted for the other guy!" In the end, however, it really only helps the candidate that least reflects your views. # Change comes from within. So if voting for third parties is ineffective, what can you do? Work within one of the existing parties. Write letters. Make phone calls. Donate money to primary candidates you like. This is a lot more work than voting for a third party, but it can accomplish so much more. The actions of conservatives can be instructive, here. When they didn't like the Immigration Reform Bill, they didn't go off in a huff and vow to vote for the Constitution Party. They wrote letters and made phone calls to Republican politicians, and they got results -- within a week or two that bill wasn't just dead, it was radioactive. # Politics is a game of numbers. To accomplish anything in the House, a party needs a majority. To accomplish anything in the Senate, a party needs 60 votes. (If they have a truly hostile President to overcome, they might need a two-thirds supermajority in both houses.) If these thresholds aren't reached, it doesn't matter much how ideologically pure and united they are; nothing will get accomplished without significant compromises. For that reason, sometimes it's necessary to hold your nose and vote for someone you don't like in the general election, just because it'll nudge the party you prefer closer to those magic numbers. No one likes doing this, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. And... # It's always the lesser of two evils. Unless you're voting for yourself, there isn't a politician out there you won't disagree with on some issues. Representative democracy is about picking the person who will best represent your interests out of the choices available; it accomplishes nothing to hold out for perfection. ------------------------ Katherine in Australia wrote in with this bit of insight about third parties: Quote: In Britain they have a thriving alternative party known as the Liberal Democrats. The Libdems didn't start out by aiming for power in Parliament, they went for power in the local councils and townships. As they became well known and well respected, it made it possible for them to move up into federal power as well. The third parties in the US tend to go straight for Federal power, rather than doing any long term planning. Let's say we revived Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party. Let's say the Progs managed to eventually start capturing some power at the county and state levels. Let's also say that this party was then able to prove itself as a positive and effective force that generated great voter loyalty. Eventually, the possibility would be there for them to move up into Federal politics. If nothing else, their popularity might cause the Federal parties to become more left leaning. This is an excellent point. This is how you build a national party -- by starting on the local, grass-roots level. This is really what the Green Party and groups like them should be trying to do, instead of trying to get a shortcut to relevancy by running Presidential campaigns. Thought I'd share. It's an interesting point-counterpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:19 pm
Hmm, an interesting point. However, I feel I shouldn't have to compromise that much because of the two-party system. I know this is one of those "have you cake and eat it too" scenarios, but what would happen if the two-party system could be abolished?
The idea of starting small and then moving to federal government is a good idea, and sounds a bit like something we'd have to do if we ever wanted to start this plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:27 am
One would hope that you could "have your cake and eat it, too" by enacting both plans at once, i.e. creating or supporting a localized third party AND trying to change the modern party.
The two-party system is very oppressive, I agree. But, while I don't like it, I will admit that representative democracy naturally lends itself to some sort of party structure. More parties = better, but it's the kind of slow change that comes from being local at first that generates better voter loyalty and can honestly tear down the two-party system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:12 pm
Swordmaster Dragon One would hope that you could "have your cake and eat it, too" by enacting both plans at once, i.e. creating or supporting a localized third party AND trying to change the modern party. The two-party system is very oppressive, I agree. But, while I don't like it, I will admit that representative democracy naturally lends itself to some sort of party structure. More parties = better, but it's the kind of slow change that comes from being local at first that generates better voter loyalty and can honestly tear down the two-party system. All right, I see your point. And after learning about the Populist Party in history, I would have to say that starting at the national level doesn't work out so well. So, assuming all goes well on the local and state level, and a third party does manage to emerge on the national level, this would mean a tearing down of the old two-party system. But into what? How will elections be set up? How would we be able to ensure the multiple parties don't fuse back into two parties? Would laws and other issues still need to be solved using the 50% rule?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:23 pm
What 50% rule are you referring to? As far as I can tell, none of the laws that reference needing a majority to concur would be changed. The biggest change in the playing field is that, under a >2-party system, you will be *forced* to create bills that pacify more than just your own party. Of course, this assumes that a third party is truly generated, and not simply made by cleaving one party in twain.
What would happen, I think, is that the two-party system isn't "torn down" at all. What you arrive at is just a redistribution of two parties into more. With enough parties, it would then act more like a free market, in the following sense:
Let's say there are several parties (5, if you really want to pick a number) and while some are more numerous than others, none is a majority (>50%). If party A then wants to pass a bill, they must make sure that it meets the approval of several different parties. Without the either-or division you get on so many issues in the two-party system (you're either conservative OR liberal, either pro-choice OR pro-life, etc) a more varied array of bills and laws get passed. Smaller parties don't have a reason to fuse with larger ones in this scenario; they can choose to side with them on some issues and debate them on others, thus retaining independence while allowing politics to proceed.
In short, each party (in a several-party system) has both identity and autonomy: they can choose their position on each and every topic, and honestly enact social change *without* having to claim identity with a party they would otherwise detest. This feels, at its core, extremely important to a functioning representative democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:52 pm
Swordmaster Dragon What 50% rule are you referring to? As far as I can tell, none of the laws that reference needing a majority to concur would be changed. The biggest change in the playing field is that, under a >2-party system, you will be *forced* to create bills that pacify more than just your own party. Of course, this assumes that a third party is truly generated, and not simply made by cleaving one party in twain. What would happen, I think, is that the two-party system isn't "torn down" at all. What you arrive at is just a redistribution of two parties into more. With enough parties, it would then act more like a free market, in the following sense: Let's say there are several parties (5, if you really want to pick a number) and while some are more numerous than others, none is a majority (>50%). If party A then wants to pass a bill, they must make sure that it meets the approval of several different parties. Without the either-or division you get on so many issues in the two-party system (you're either conservative OR liberal, either pro-choice OR pro-life, etc) a more varied array of bills and laws get passed. Smaller parties don't have a reason to fuse with larger ones in this scenario; they can choose to side with them on some issues and debate them on others, thus retaining independence while allowing politics to proceed. In short, each party (in a several-party system) has both identity and autonomy: they can choose their position on each and every topic, and honestly enact social change *without* having to claim identity with a party they would otherwise detest. This feels, at its core, extremely important to a functioning representative democracy. That would be a great result. And then voters have more variety of parties to choose from, and so hopefully can find a candidate that supports more of the views they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
