The Only Realistic Way to Kill the Two-Party System

[powerofreason]

Is to use proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) instead of FPTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system)(first past the post).

I know it was briefly tried before in places like NYC council elections, but was done away with because a couple commies got elected and that spooked some people. Most of the world does use PR, and as a result do not have to choose the lesser of two evils and can instead vote for whoever they truly want without feeling as if their vote is going to waste. I've only thought about it briefly but it sounds SOOOO much fairer. Could this possibly catch on, on a local level to start? All it takes to move to PR on a local level is a referendum to change the town/city charter. Third parties do not do well here because we have single-member districts. Thats the real root of the problem imo. Sort of a long-shot idea, I know.

Pics of PR ballots, open list and closed list:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/images/closed.gif

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/images/openballot.gif

These two are the most popular PR systems.

Multiple candidates get seats, allowing for more proportional representation. If a party earns 10% of the vote in a district with ten seats, thats one seat won.

[Josh_LA]

Is to use proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) instead of FPTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system)(first past the post).


Yes, but why should those in power allow it when they don't have to?

[Dequeant]

Awwww.......I thought this might involve explosives. I'm somewhat disappointed.

[torchbearer]

Awwww.......I thought this might involve explosives. I'm somewhat disappointed.

+1, I was accused of making a bomb today- I was testing out IP cameras with an adjustable voltage/amp box. Though the thought did cross my mind.
I do have a lot of old cellphones lying around. :D

[powerofreason]

Awwww.......I thought this might involve explosives. I'm somewhat disappointed.

Don't worry thats plan b :D

[nate895]

I think this is a good way to do it. Since the Constitution doesn't mandate single-member districts (besides Senate seats), each state could adopt it one-by-one through the use of the initiative.

[powerofreason]

Yes, but why should those in power allow it when they don't have to?

Well, at the local level only a referendum is required. This is how it came about in NYC, because the folks at the top didn't have to o.k. it, from what I understand. I know the local level doesn't change a hell of a lot, but maybe we can rekindle the grassroots movement for PR that existed in the late 19th/early 20th century. Otherwise, we're stuck with the two-party dictatorship forever. Sure, you'll have parties spring up from time to time like Ross Perot's party, but they always die out or merge with one of the two main parties for the most part.

[powerofreason]

Another plus is that PR is far more accountable to the people because of multi-member districts.

[TastyWheat]

Yes, but why should those in power allow it when they don't have to?
Perfect answer, if they don't play ball then people will switch to a national popular vote. The scary thing is, it wouldn't even require a constitutional amendment. If enough states agree to throw all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner that's it. Republicans at least claim that they don't want a national popular vote system. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just another phony plank to try and distinguish themselves from the Democrats.

I'm going to bring up a proportional vote resolution in 2010. I suggest the rest of you do the same in your state. If that passes we can try to push an Instant Runoff Vote or something like it, but I'm sure that will have much more and equal opposition from both parties.

[powerofreason]

I'm going to bring up a proportional vote resolution in 2010.

Great! I'll see if there's any support for PR in my state.

[Josh_LA]

Another plus is that PR is far more accountable to the people because of multi-member districts.

Yes, I don't need you to tell me what's good about PR, or competition, the question is how do you ask people to give up their powers?

That's like saying, if the rich wasted their money on the poor, the poor wouldn't be poor. Yeah, duh, but why should they or would they?

[powerofreason]

Yes, I don't need you to tell me what's good about PR, or competition, the question is how do you ask people to give up their powers?

That's like saying, if the rich wasted their money on the poor, the poor wouldn't be poor. Yeah, duh, but why should they or would they?

Put the initiative on the ballot, and the people will vote it up or down. I don't think its any more complicated than that. The problem is getting people to understand why they should want PR over FPTP. Most people are gonna look at the ballot and be like, umm, whats this?

[Alawn]

Sounds like a horrible idea. Almost every election is for one representative of the local district. This would require giving the ability people outside of your district the ability to determine who you should have representing you. It would mean you would have to eliminate districts and go with a state popular vote. Preferential voting would be much better. With preferential voting you rank the candidates. This way the wasting your vote argument goes out the window. You lose nothing for voting for a Libertarian because if he doesn't get enough votes then the 2nd ranked guy, a Republican or whatever else, gets your vote.

[powerofreason]

Sounds like a horrible idea. Preferential voting would be much better. With preferential voting you rank the candidates. This way the wasting your vote argument goes out the window. You lose nothing for voting for a Libertarian because if he doesn't get enough votes then the 2nd ranked guy, a Republican or whatever else, gets your vote.

I'm curious what your gripe is with straight up PR? The single transferrable vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Single_transferable_vo te_in_a_multi-member_constituency) system you're referring to is definitely better than what we have. I'm just wondering which idea would get the most popular support.

[Standing Like A Rock]

can someone explain to me how this works

[bojo68]

Can someone explain to me where it HAS worked??

[powerofreason]

Can someone explain to me where it HAS worked??

Most of Europe and the world uses proportional representation, instead of our "first past the post" system. Proportional representation uses multi-member districts, as opposed to our single member districts. When you go to the polls to vote, there are multiple seats at stake.

[powerofreason]

*edited out my bad example*

Look here (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm), for clarification.

[nate895]

can someone explain to me how this works

Instead of voting for a person, you vote for a party (and sometimes you can vote for specific people within the party, up to the maximum number of seats) and they divvy out the seats to the parties and the people who get the most votes for the seats in the party's primary.

So, instead of:

US House of Representative (vote for 1):

John Democrat
Mary Republican
Joseph Libertarian
Jennifer Green

you get:

US House of Representatives (vote for 1, 9 seats proportionally allocated):

Constitution Party
Democrat Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Republican Party
and list goes on

So all a party would need to get a seat in this 9 seat district (my home state of Washington) was just 11% of the vote, instead winning one seat with a majority.

In my state, I'd bet it would go like this

Constitution Party: 0
Democrat Party: 4
Green Party: 1
Libertarian Party: 1
Republican Party: 3

[powerofreason]

Instead of voting for a person, you vote for a party (and sometimes you can vote for specific people within the party, up to the maximum number of seats) and they divvy out the seats to the parties and the people who get the most votes for the seats in the party's primary.

So, instead of:

US House of Representative (vote for 1):

John Democrat
Mary Republican
Joseph Libertarian
Jennifer Green

you get:

US House of Representatives (vote for 1, 9 seats proportionally allocated):

Constitution Party
Democrat Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Republican Party
and list goes on

So all a party would need to get a seat in this 9 seat district (my home state of Washington) was just 11% of the vote, instead winning one seat with a majority.

In my state, I'd bet it would go like this

Constitution Party: 0
Democrat Party: 4
Green Party: 1
Libertarian Party: 1
Republican Party: 3

Yep, that'd be the "closed party list" ballot. "open party list" is apparently more popular from what this (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm) article I found says.

[nate895]

Yep, that'd be the "closed party list" ballot. "open party list" is apparently more popular from what this (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm) article I found says.

I prefer closed party list, with a party primary to decide the order the candidates will win their seats. It is much simpler, IMO, and still works out to give everyone a voice.

[powerofreason]

Oh nvm, I misunderstood something.

[powerofreason]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6D91739F93BA25751C1A9669C8B 63

gnight

[Alawn]

I'm curious what your gripe is with straight up PR? The single transferrable vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Single_transferable_vo te_in_a_multi-member_constituency) system you're referring to is definitely better than what we have. I'm just wondering which idea would get the most popular support.

My problem is exactly what I said. Virtually every single elected office is for one person in the given area. This system could not work that way. The only way to have this work is to combine areas into groups. This destroys the ability people to locally decide who represents them. Instead of district one deciding who represents them there is a state popular vote and the entire state decides who is the representative. If you did this for mayor people in San Fransisco get a say in who the mayor of LA is. I do not want my local elected officials decided by divvying up the whole states votes. This is horrible.

[nate895]

My problem is exactly what I said. Virtually every single elected office is for one person in the given area. This system could not work that way. The only way to have this work is to combine areas into groups. This destroys the ability people to locally decide who represents them. Instead of district one deciding who represents them there is a state popular vote and the entire state decides who is the representative. If you did this for mayor people in San Fransisco get a say in who the mayor of LA is. I do not want my local elected officials decided by divvying up the whole states votes. This is horrible.

You could, as it is my opinion, only do this for the legislatures. For the US House the state could be the large electoral district, for the state legislatures, counties or other districts, and for local councils they could choose how they do things. Executive positions, beyond apportioning Presidential electors proportionally, can't, by their very nature, be proportional. There is only one person in the office, therefore no proportional representation is needed.

[american.swan]

Yes, but why should those in power allow it when they don't have to?

California has the power to force this kind of thing through. Get enough signatures for a referendum on it.

Don't people realize that some states can force the government with referendums?

[Alawn]

I'm in CA and I will tell everyone to not vote for this if it is on the ballot. This sort of thing is tyrannical.

[nate895]

I'm in CA and I will tell everyone to not vote for this if it is on the ballot. This sort of thing is tyrannical.

Why? It isn't tyrannical, just the opposite.

[Alawn]

You could, as it is my opinion, only do this for the legislatures. For the US House the state could be the large electoral district, for the state legislatures, counties or other districts, and for local councils they could choose how they do things. Executive positions, beyond apportioning Presidential electors proportionally, can't, by their very nature, be proportional. There is only one person in the office, therefore no proportional representation is needed.

That is unacceptable. I don't want to abolish congressional districts. Local areas have local problems and I do not care what some idiot across the state thinks about who should represent me. All positions not just executive positions only have one person. The job of a house representative is not to represent the state he is from. It is to represent the district he is from. Allowing people from other districts to have any say at all over who represents me is taking away my rights and tyrannical. If this comes up on my ballot I will put in every effort possible to defeat it.

If you want a more fair way to let third parties have a chance then I would be all for preferential voting. Two examples of how this would work are instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting) and the Condorcet method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method). In either one you rank the candidates in order of how you like them and it eliminates the wasted vote argument so people aren't afraid to vote for 3rd parties. You have nothing to lose by voting for a 3rd party candidate if he doesn't end up winning because your next preference can still get your vote and win. That is the main reason people dismiss 3rd parties anyway.

[nate895]

That is unacceptable. I don't want to abolish congressional districts. Local areas have local problems and I do not care what some idiot across the state thinks about who should represent me. All positions not just executive positions only have one person. The job of a house representative is not to represent the state he is from. It is to represent the district he is from. Allowing people from other districts to have any say at all over who represents me is taking away my rights and tyrannical. If this comes up on my ballot I will put in every effort possible to defeat it.

If you want a more fair way to let third parties have a chance then I would be all for preferential voting. Two examples of how this would work are instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting) and the Condorcet method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method). In either one you rank the candidates in order of how you like them and it eliminates the wasted vote argument so people aren't afraid to vote for 3rd parties. You have nothing to lose from voting for a 3rd party candidate if he doesn't end up winning because your next preference can still get your vote and win. That is the main reason people dismiss 3rd parties anyway.

According to the Constitution, a Representative represents his state, nowhere does it make a statement as to how states give out seats, just how many they get. Besides, the US Congress has no power to do anything that would affect you to that extent on the local level.

[Alawn]

According to the Constitution, a Representative represents his state, nowhere does it make a statement as to how states give out seats, just how many they get. Besides, the US Congress has no power to do anything that would affect you to that extent on the local level.

A representative represents his district. You are wrong. The constitution just says how many a state gets not that they represent the state over the district. Same goes for the state legislature. When an official is elected by a huge group of people he doesn't really give a crap about what individuals think about him. Each person loses a lot of his power to effect the election. Each vote counts drastically more when you have small local groups and the politicians will have to pay attention to you.

Your system makes party politics even worse than it is now. Under that system we aren't even voting for a person. We are voting for a party. That is crazy.

[nate895]

A representative represents his district. You are wrong. The constitution just says how many a state gets not that they represent the state over the district. Same goes for the state legislature. When an official is elected by a huge group of people he doesn't really give a crap about what individuals think about him. Each person loses a lot of his power to effect the election. Each vote counts drastically more when you have small local groups and the politicians will have to pay attention to you.

Your system makes party politics even worse than it is now. Under that system we aren't even voting for a person. We are voting for a party. That is crazy.

Yes, because massive 600,000 person districts mean individuals have lots of powers. I'm not suggesting that state legislatures or city councils be made up of people from across the political unit they serve, but that each district (heck, you can keep the same size district, just give out more seats) has multiple representatives, and minority voices are heard. In our current house, there is but one voice of liberty out of 535, and yet we know at least 1% of the voters support his exact message, in a proportional system our voice would have 4 or 5 representatives right now, not one.

The Constitution doesn't mention districts, and no one really knows how states got that message out of the Constitution.

[Alawn]

Yes, because massive 600,000 person districts mean individuals have lots of powers.

Compared to the entire state of CA it sure as heck does. Why don't we just do a national party vote and then divvy up the representatives while we are at it?

And there still isn't any reason to increase the amount of party politics. I don't want to vote for a party. I want to vote for a person.

[nate895]

Compared to the entire state of CA it sure as heck does. Why don't we just do a national party vote and then divvy up the representatives while we are at it?

And there still isn't any reason to increase the amount of party politics. I don't want to vote for a party. I want to vote for a person.

Because that would go against the Constitution and the principles of federalism.

[Alawn]

Because that would go against the Constitution and the principles of federalism.

You just don't seem to get it. Pass an amendment then. It is no different than what you are asking for. And it goes against the principle of local representation.

And you still haven't answered why I would want to vote for a party over a person.

[nate895]

You just don't seem to get it. Pass an amendment then. It is no different than what you are asking for. And it goes against the principle of local representation.

And you still haven't answered why I would want to vote for a party over a person.

You still can vote for a person, in the primary to determine who the party will put up and in what order, and for any independents who seek the seat.

The US Congress is meant to be a body that exercises the authority the states granted to it in the compact entitled the US Constitution, not a body to enact laws that would have impact on your specific local area. You will get the same vote in the new system as you did in the old, and you will get representation, even if you are a conservative in a city full of socialists.

[Alawn]

The US Congress is meant to be a body that exercises the authority the states granted to it in the compact entitled the US Constitution, not a body to enact laws that would have impact on your specific local area.

What they have authority to vote on is irrelevant. First of all nobody in congress pays any attention to that rule. Secondly no matter what they are allowed to vote for I still want to have them represent me and not the entire state. And thirdly any law no matter what it is will effect different areas differently.

[nate895]

What they have authority to vote on is irrelevant. First of all nobody in congress pays any attention to that rule. Secondly no matter what they are allowed to vote for I still want to have them represent me and not the entire state. And thirdly any law no matter what it is will effect different areas differently.

The US Government isn't supposed to govern you. It governs the states if you followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The states delegated their authority in certain matters to the US Congress, and that body governs the bodies that delegated to it.

[Alawn]

What they have authority to vote on is irrelevant. First of all nobody in congress pays any attention to that rule. Secondly no matter what they are allowed to vote for I still want to have them represent me and not the entire state. And thirdly any law no matter what it is will effect different areas differently.


The US Government isn't supposed to govern you. It governs the states if you followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The states delegated their authority in certain matters to the US Congress, and that body governs the bodies that delegated to it.

Again it doesn't matter for the above reasons. But the constitution does grant the federal government exclusive authority to govern certain issues. It does govern you on those issues.

The system you want would be much much worse than what we already have which stinks. Please don't respond to this and let this abomination of a thread die.

[nate895]

Again it doesn't matter for the above reasons. But the constitution does grant the federal government exclusive authority to govern certain issues. It does govern you on those issues.

The system you want would be much much worse than what we already have which stinks. Please don't respond to this and let this abomination of a thread die.

bump

I don't care what they do do, I think this is the best way to get back to that system.

[Knightskye]

They do that in England, right?

I like the idea. We'd actually have Libertarian-minded people in office.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm going to bring up a proportional vote resolution in 2010. I suggest the rest of you do the same in your state. If that passes we can try to push an Instant Runoff Vote or something like it, but I'm sure that will have much more and equal opposition from both parties.

A great idea, but I don't know how to do it. Links please? :D

[american.swan]

I like the proportional style, because right now the two parties control too much. With a referendum from the people in favor of a proportional voting method, the third parties can get same seats and even the debates would be changed locally. Imagine a debate for your state house containing third parties because they could get enough votes to win a seat.

If someone has an objection to this proportional system, then I think we should try to use referendum to go to a political system similar to NH's system, where everyone can have a say. In this day an age, NH's system isn't so bad either. It would be better then what we have.

Only 16 state allow for direct public referendums. I'd be willing to move to one of those 16 states.

[acptulsa]

I think this is a good way to do it. Since the Constitution doesn't mandate single-member districts (besides Senate seats), each state could adopt it one-by-one through the use of the initiative.

No wonder we're confused. The Senate does not have single member districts. The House has single member districts. The Senate has two-member districts--fifty of them, to be exact.

A state experimenting with a parliamentary system would be interesting indeed. Very interesting. That said, I don't know how well we'd do with multiple parties in the presidential election as it is set up. The president is the person who gets more than half of the electoral votes. With four parties in serious contention, we could see a lot of elections come down to the House.

[nate895]

No wonder we're confused. The Senate does not have single member districts. The House has single member districts. The Senate has two-member districts--fifty of them, to be exact.

A state experimenting with a parliamentary system would be interesting indeed. Very interesting. That said, I don't know how well we'd do with multiple parties in the presidential election as it is set up. The president is the person who gets more than half of the electoral votes. With four parties in serious contention, we could see a lot of elections come down to the House.

I was just saying that the senate seats have to be awarded individually, not through the use of proportion.

[powerofreason]

They do that in England, right?

I like the idea. We'd actually have Libertarian-minded people in office.

Actually, they use single member districts (what we have) in England, which is an anomaly in Europe. If you're talking about the entire U.K., some places like Northern Ireland use preferential voting which is a form of PR. The main problem with our single member districts is that if, say, a libertarian candidate consistently gets 20% of the vote in a 3-person race, it does not matter at all. Those people that voted for the libertarian are screwed out of representation, and are now stuck with a neocon or socialist. Now of course, this rarely happens because the people that would vote Libertarian in a PR system realize that their candidate will not win in a FPTP system, so as a result try to pick the lesser of two evils. The two party system is inevitable. Its just a question of which two parties. Tough ballot access laws suck, but they are not the main reason why third parties fail in the U.S. Its either PR, or two parties. Take your pick.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=Stop+voting&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com

[powerofreason]

Also, to the dude that says he wants to vote for a person, and not a party. Thats how most countries do it nowadays. You vote for a person, and a party at the same time.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/images/openballot.gif

[powerofreason]

Also, apparently there is a concern that with massive multi-seat districts, the legislators will not be accountable to the people. This is false. Lets say in a ten-seat district, two Libertarians are elected. All the libertarians in that district are gonna be constantly on those 2 guys asses, making sure they are voting the right way and doing the right things. Now lets say I am in a small single member district which votes Democrat every single year without fail. Where is my representation? Can I really blame this person for say, voting for a bailout, or raising taxes? No, because he/she won't give a rip. That person does not need my vote to stay elected. That's better? I say definitely not.

[powerofreason]

http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=Stop+voting&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com

I vote in self defense. I will relucantly get my ass to the polling station and cancel out the vote of one retard. On the national level, I agree on not voting. Its so goddamn pointless. Especially in a state like Connecticut. If I don't vote for Obama, my vote does not count, literally. In a proportional system, libertarian candidates will earn electoral votes. In other words, my vote counts toward the reasonable goal of obtaining a slice of electoral votes.

[Truth Warrior]

I vote in self defense. I will relucantly get my ass to the polling station and cancel out the vote of one retard. On the national level, I agree on not voting. Its so goddamn pointless. Especially in a state like Connecticut. If I don't vote for Obama, my vote does not count, literally. In a proportional system, libertarian candidates will earn electoral votes. In other words, my vote counts toward the reasonable goal of obtaining a slice of electoral votes. How's that tactic working out for you? ;)

[Conservationist]

Third parties do not do well here because we have single-member districts. .

I disagree. I think third parties do not do well here because there is so little in common that it is very hard to get people to agree on anything but cartoony, simplistic politics.

Look at how the media ignored Ron Paul for so long. He wasn't good, easy news, like Obama the car salesman and McCain the Manchurian candidate.

[powerofreason]

I disagree. I think third parties do not do well here because there is so little in common that it is very hard to get people to agree on anything but cartoony, simplistic politics.

Look at how the media ignored Ron Paul for so long. He wasn't good, easy news, like Obama the car salesman and McCain the Manchurian candidate.

If you look at countries that use PR, there are multiple parties. If you look at countries that use FPTP, there are two main parties, with third parties coming and going. Occasionally, like in Britain a third party will overtake one of the two main parties, and then that party will be relegated to third party status. The Liberals in England use to be in the position that Labor is in today. I just wrote a report on this last night.
Edit: Labor is now in the shitter, I'm talking a couple years back.

There are a few reasons I can think of that people might be against PR:

1. A fragmented legislature can make doing much of anything difficult. Thats why in countries that use PR you get "coalition governments" that work together to get things done.
2. You feel that you are well represented already in your district. Doubt it.
3. You dislike the idea of having straight up communists and other radicals in your state house.
4. You like the two-party dictatorship.
5. You are a traditionalist and hate change.

[TastyWheat]

Ahh, you guys switched it on me. If you're talking about changing the voting system (the way ballots are cast and tallied) then you definitely need to see this chart on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_with_other_preferential_ single-winner_election_methods

I think the Schulze method has the best criterion, although it's kind of difficult to understand.

The thing I was talking about earlier was the way electoral votes are apportioned. Most states cast electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. I think the electoral votes should be cast proportionally (one vote per district and two bonus votes per state). If I can get that passed then I'll work on reforming the system.

[nate895]

I disagree. I think third parties do not do well here because there is so little in common that it is very hard to get people to agree on anything but cartoony, simplistic politics.

Look at how the media ignored Ron Paul for so long. He wasn't good, easy news, like Obama the car salesman and McCain the Manchurian candidate.

It is called Duverger's Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)

[TastyWheat]

I think the most important thing to remember here is to maintain federalism. California can have proportional representation, Iowa can use IRV, Ohio can use plurality voting by district, and Texas can draw names out of a hat. The US Constitution does not say one Representative per district or how they are supposed to be chosen. These things are completely left up to the states. If you don't like the idea of proportional representation then don't do it, let some other state try it out first. Just do whatever it is that you think will give a fair chance to 3rd parties and independents.

[american.swan]

Yes, but why should those in power allow it when they don't have to?

That is why we have to take over one of the parties FIRST.

[Truth Warrior]

I'd suggest, as an individual, just walk away. :) Pass it on.

Collectively, bust your butt, working out the how, who, what, where, when. :rolleyes:

[nakor667]

I think one of our best shots is to start infiltrating a state legislature, do away with arbitrary congressional districts, and impose single non-transferable vote (SNTV) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_non-transferable_vote).

That way we can elect liberty minded people to congress without having to concentrate in one district, while other representatives run against each other!

[mediahasyou]

How do you plan to implement this new, "better" voting system?


Pass an Amendment needing 2/3 majority in house and senate to change the system to not favor the 2 party system as much.

The 2 parties will never vote themselves out of power.

[powerofreason]

How do you plan to implement this new, "better" voting system?


Pass an Amendment needing 2/3 majority in house and senate to change the system to not favor the 2 party system as much.

The 2 parties will never vote themselves out of power.

Doesn't require an amendment. Theres nothing in the Constitution about it. States can determine this through ballot referendums. Maine, and I think Nebraska, split their electoral votes for president proportionally. Also, if the Republican Party split the votes proportionally like the Dems do in the primaries we might not be stuck with McCrackhead today. Not saying RP would've won but he would've done way better.

[nate895]

Doesn't require an amendment. Theres nothing in the Constitution about it. States can determine this through ballot referendums. Maine, and I think Nebraska, split their electoral votes for president proportionally. Also, if the Republican Party split the votes proportionally like the Dems do in the primaries we might not be stuck with McCrackhead today. Not saying RP would've won but he would've done way better.

They determine their electors on a first pass the post basis in every congressional district, and then two are determined by the overall popular vote.

[Knightskye]

+1, I was accused of making a bomb today- I was testing out IP cameras with an adjustable voltage/amp box. Though the thought did cross my mind.
I do have a lot of old cellphones lying around. :D

Were you doing this on a park bench, or in your office? :D