PDA

View Full Version : Alternative voting




ghotiblue
03-24-2010, 11:47 AM
I'm not a fan of this guy's idea of the "radical center", but I think he makes some good suggestions for changing the current two-party political structure.


How best to promote these hybrid ideas? Break the oligopoly of our two-party system. Diamond suggests two innovations. First, let every state emulate California’s recent grass-roots initiative that took away the power to design Congressional districts from the state legislature and put it in the hands of an independent, politically neutral, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It will go to work after the 2010 census and reshape California’s Congressional districts for the 2012 elections. Henceforth, districts in California will not be designed to be automatically Democratic or Republican — so more of them will be competitive, so more candidates will only be electable if they appeal to the center, not just cater to one party.

Second, get states to adopt “alternative voting.” One reason independent, third-party, centrist candidates can’t get elected is because if, in a three-person race, a Democrat votes for an independent, and the independent loses, the Democrat fears his vote will have actually helped the Republican win, or vice versa. Alternative voting allows you to rank the independent candidate your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice, say, the Democrat. Therefore, you have no fear that in voting for an independent you might help elect your real nightmare — the Republican. Nothing has held back the growth of independent, centrist candidates more, said Diamond, “than the fear that if you vote for one of them you will be wasting your vote. Alternative voting, which Australia has, can overcome that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.htm


I think implementing alternative voting would allow third parties to have a much higher chance of being elected, and over time we would see the two major parties weakened significantly. It also seems like an idea that most people would support. Is this something worth pushing for?

Elwar
03-24-2010, 11:56 AM
Another thing would be requiring all candidates to fulfill the exact same steps to get on the ballot with no regard for past election results.

As well as getting rid of party names or labels on the ballot.

If a group wants to hold their own primary to decide which of its members should go on the ballot...fine. But don't have the state dictate how that group picks its candidates.

Just have each candidate (including incumbants) gather signatures making up 1% of the total voters and be done with it.