Breaking the two party stranglehold.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok, so this came to me the other day. Other than the constitutional amendment required to make the change, anyone see a problem with the following?

Run-offs. If no candidate gets a true majority of the popular vote, there's a runoff, a second voting day, where the only two choices are the two candidates with the highest numbers. Seems to me the main barrier to any indpendents or third party candidates getting decent numbers is that so many people are afraid of throwing their vote away. If it were done this way, that worry would be eliminated.

For example, you want to vote Mike's Party. But are afraid that will help the republicans win. If you vote for Mike, your vote does not help the republicans at all. If they get a majority anyway, then your vote for the democrat wouldn't have changed that. And if they don't, then there will be a runoff.

I know lots of countries do it, I don't see why it couldn't be implemented here. Again, ignoring the complexities of passing an amendment.

[TheAnvil 0]

Good idea.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Ron 10]

Quote

Run-offs. If no candidate gets a true majority of the popular vote,

You would have to define "True Majority". The problem is that "Mikes" votes could go either way...But they still would not be counted, and they might give either canidate the push needed. Plus it would delay the election a good bit.

Another solution would be allowing each person two votes...

A primary vote, and a secondary.

However each plan has issues, and goes against the idea of one man, one vote.

A better option is to have the third parties really put up a good canidate. Say McCain/Lieberman or some other ticket that would have a chance as opposed to the ones that have been running.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Kennedy 0]

So are we talking complete elimination of the electoral college?
(now I'm not necessarily against that, I just want to be clear)

Otherwise, your idea doesn't really work.



Also, in the run off election, is it limited to people who voted the first time around, or can any registered voter show up at the polls?

Honestly, the easiest way to have the biggest effect on voter participation would be to allow registration at the polls.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So are we talking complete elimination of the electoral college?
(now I'm not necessarily against that, I just want to be clear)

Otherwise, your idea doesn't really work.

Yeah, I suppose that would be the case. But there have only been two times where someone didn't get the majority vote and won the electoral college. So it could probably be worked out.

Quote

Also, in the run off election, is it limited to people who voted the first time around, or can any registered voter show up at the polls?

I don't see why it should. The first election is to see if a majority is behind one candidate. If not, then you get a choice of two, so by default one of them will have a majority behind them. If people choose not to take advantage of their right to vote in one or the other election, that shouldn't make a difference.

Quote

Honestly, the easiest way to have the biggest effect on voter participation would be to allow registration at the polls.

I agree, and I expect that will happen in the future when the inevitable national id cards are issued. Until then, it would be a nightmare in populated areas trying to id people, make sure they're in the right polling place, haven't voted at another polling place, etc. etc.

[TheAnvil 0]

Not necessarily. The Electoral College could - and should - remain under such a system. Quite interesting as an idea.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Kennedy 0]

Short of making each state exactly representative of the number of active votes (thereby negating the need for the college), how could the electoral college fit with Kev's plan?

His plan is 100% dependent on the popular vote. What point would there be to the college's continued existence?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jdhill 0]

That sort of thing is done in some municipal elections, Houston for example... to be elected mayor, the candidate must have 50%+1 of the votes cast... if no one gets it, the top two have a runoff about a month later.

At the national level, the Electoral College presents a problem since it is a winner takes all situation (state-by-state)... a third party candidate would need to win a state to get any electoral college delegates... one would have to go to a purely popular vote, or reform the electoral college to reflect percentages of the vote for each state.

It would take a huge effort to institute such change... but would not be insurmountable.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Run-offs. If no candidate gets a true majority of the popular vote,

You would have to define "True Majority". The problem is that "Mikes" votes could go either way...But they still would not be counted, and they might give either canidate the push needed. Plus it would delay the election a good bit.

Another solution would be allowing each person two votes...

A primary vote, and a secondary.

However each plan has issues, and goes against the idea of one man, one vote.

A better option is to have the third parties really put up a good canidate. Say McCain/Lieberman or some other ticket that would have a chance as opposed to the ones that have been running.

Ron, Anvil please don't fall for this crap. When Theodore Roosevelt screwed William Howard Taft, {giving the election to Woodrow Wilson} no liberal was ready to jump up and change our system. As it is, it wasn't till decades later that they would even admit that Woodrow Wilson would not stand a chance in hell of defeating Taft had it not been for TR's infamous "Bull-Mouse Party". Still to this day they deny that Ross Perot got Clinton elected in 92. Now all of the sudden Ralph Nader starts making them feel some of the pain and they want to reform our entire system. No freakin way!

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

I know lots of countries do it, I don't see why it couldn't be implemented here.

From my simplistic point of view - It shits on states like New Mexico. NM has less than 2 million people. New York City has 5 times that. As a candidate - where will you spend your time and money and whose issues are you going to listen to? A popular vote that way seems to me to be handing the reins of the country to California and New York - no thanks. (no offense to the nuts and yankees )

As much as I would love to see the two party system busted up - I don't think this is the way. I think the way lies in voter education and dedication of the third party members spreading the word. Probably most importantly is to get a candidate the people recognize and TRUST - something neither major party has right now imo.

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Nightingale 0]

for a third party to ever be competitive, we need to get rid of federal contributions to campaigns.

smaller campaigns (third party) have trouble raising enough money to qualify for government funds, as there's an initial amount the party has to come up with...the thing is, that initial amount is so high, anyone who can raise it doesn't really need govt money to campaign.

getting rid of this would also remove the problem of taxpayers money going to candidates not supported by the taxpayer.

[tunaplanet 0]

Sounds like you're already digging for an out for your man. Kerry doesn't look promising in the elections.

Forty-two

[jumper03 0]

Quote

getting rid of this would also remove the problem of taxpayers money going to candidates not supported by the taxpayer.

Amen to that.

When I hear how much money is spent on the campaign, I always find myself wondering - why don't they do some good with that money?

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Zennie 0]

Wow, a thread where most everyone agrees! Nice to see.

Beyond what everyone else has said, third party candidates should also be permitted to participate in the public debates.

You'd want to manage scope somehow, because allowing every party candidate would make the thing a circus. Maybe every candidate from the top five parties as measured by registered voters? I dunno.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[jdhill 0]

Quote

third party candidates should also be permitted to participate in the public debates.

If they have a chance to win, yes they should.

My definition of chance... If a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to actually gain enough electoral college delegates to be elected, they should be invited to participate.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Run-offs. If no candidate gets a true majority of the popular vote, there's a runoff, a second voting day, where the only two choices are the two candidates with the highest numbers. Seems to me the main barrier to any indpendents or third party candidates getting decent numbers is that so many people are afraid of throwing their vote away. If it were done this way, that worry would be eliminated.

Instant runoff already exists for some local elections and is becoming somewhat fadish of late, given the cost of special elections. You would mark your top X preferences, and with each counting the low man out is eliminated until someone has a clear majority.

But honestly, I don't see the justification for a change in the Presidential. 50 million votes is still far from a majority of the american public, so why does it matter that Clinton got only 43% of those who bothered to show up?

We're a two party system. Any populist 3rd party platform gets coopted by the major parties immediately. Seeing the examples of multiparty nations, I don't feel this to be a terrible thing. Would you want the government of Italy or France?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Instant runoff already exists for some local elections and is becoming somewhat fadish of late, given the cost of special elections. You would mark your top X preferences, and with each counting the low man out is eliminated until someone has a clear majority.

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Why have a dozen votes, when you only need two? Kev's idea is much clearer and more rational. Why play elimination when you can just vote for your choice?

Quote

But honestly, I don't see the justification for a change in the Presidential. 50 million votes is still far from a majority of the american public, so why does it matter that Clinton got only 43% of those who bothered to show up?

Don't you want to be able to say your elected officials are there by the will of the voting public? This system guarantees one winner will have more than 50% of the votes.

Quote

We're a two party system. Any populist 3rd party platform gets coopted by the major parties immediately. Seeing the examples of multiparty nations, I don't feel this to be a terrible thing. Would you want the government of Italy or France?

No, we have become a two party system. So tell me, which party "coopted" the Libertarians? I like our system just fine, but why should we not have officials in office who were chosen by the majority?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,111]

>So tell me, which party "coopted" the Libertarians?

I think the republican party pulls quite a few people from the libertarian side, just as the democratic party pulls people from the green party. It waxes and wanes. You can bet that if a libertarian candidate ever got 15% of the popular vote, both the democrats and republicans would have a sudden change of heart, and you'd see a shift (perhaps not a major shift, but a shift nonetheless) in their respective platforms as they tried to capture that available vote without alienating their own voter base. Ten years ago I would have said that the republican party would have had better luck doing that, but with them becoming the party of big government, it's up for grabs. Maybe if the democrats ever get their act together . . .

[Kennedy 0]

That's the problem, the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin. (and it should be stamped no cash value)

The Libertarians are different from both parties. No other party can say that. Maybe that's why Libertarians have more people in office than all other third parties combined.

I just don't see the connection between Libs and Repubs or Dems. Neither of the big two are for shrinking government; they each want it to grow in their chosen direction. The Libs are the only party I know of that actually wants to reduce the role of government and give choice (liberty) back to the people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

But there have only been two times where someone didn't get the majority vote and won the electoral college.

Don't you mean the "plurality" (greatest percentage) and not "majority" (percentage over 50)?

I don't know the stats, but I'm under the impression that winning presidential candidates still hardly ever get over 50% of the votes of the electorate.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,111]

>The Libs are the only party I know of that actually wants to reduce
> the role of government and give choice (liberty) back to the people.

The Constitution Party lists, among its planks, "It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions."

The American Party supports:
-an end to farm price supports/subsidies
-privatization of the US Postal Service
-privatization of education
-abolition of the EPA
-repeal of NAFTA
-repeal of minimum wage laws
-repeal of all zoning laws
-withdrawal from the UN

all of which sound like the small-government provisions of the Libertarians. But then again, at least half the parties out there claim to want to "trim the fat," cut taxes, make government smaller and more streamlined etc.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

for a third party to ever be competitive, we need to get rid of federal contributions to campaigns.

smaller campaigns (third party) have trouble raising enough money to qualify for government funds, as there's an initial amount the party has to come up with...the thing is, that initial amount is so high, anyone who can raise it doesn't really need govt money to campaign.

getting rid of this would also remove the problem of taxpayers money going to candidates not supported by the taxpayer.

Why don't you gripe to George Soros, who easily could spare enough money to get a third party on the map.

Instead, he whores for Kerry.

Go figure.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>The Libs are the only party I know of that actually wants to reduce
> the role of government and give choice (liberty) back to the people.

The American Party supports:
-an end to farm price supports/subsidies
-privatization of the US Postal Service
-privatization of education
-abolition of the EPA
-repeal of NAFTA
-repeal of minimum wage laws
-repeal of all zoning laws
-withdrawal from the UN

Where is "repeal of all gun control laws"?

It sounds like this stuff leads up to that, but then...nothing. What do they say about gun control?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The American Party supports:

-privatization of the US Postal Service

I thought the USPS was already semi-privatized.

Quote

-abolition of the EPA

I don't think I necessarily think the EPA should be abolished. There are corporations that would pollute the country/world to death if no one came after them. I DO think that agencies like the EPA, FCC, et al must be reigned in, because they are just a bunch of rampant bureaucrats with virtually unlimited, unchecked, UNELECTED power.

Quote

-repeal of all zoning laws
-withdrawal from the UN

HEAR F-in' HEAR!!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Well, I'd still choose the libertarians over the constitution party, but they do have one thing that is more appealing than the Libs. I'm not such a fan of the Libs wanting to open up everything in terms of trade and borders, and I do think many of our trade agreements are asinine. Libertarians still have my vote, though.

edit - I missed the EPA thing. That's one I strong disagree with. The government has to be the one to conserve the environment. No one else can (or would). Same as law enforcement and national defense.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*