Talk:Electoral Reform Project
From dKosopedia
--Joshyelon 15:19, 15 Jul 2004 (PDT) Been thinking about this a little. After seeing Howard Dean in action, I'm not convinced that we even have a two-party system. Hear me out...
First, it seems to me that Howard Dean was, for all practical purposes, a third-party candidate. He didn't have the backing of any establishment. His movement was entirely grassroots, much like Perot or Anderson. His organization didn't use the usual channels. Like every third-party candidate, he was an outsider. If Dean had succeeded, then what you would be seeing now is a Democratic party that bears little resemblance to the Kerry Democratic party. It would be the "Democratic party" in name only. In reality, it would be the Deaniac party.
So here's my question: are we really a two-party system? It seems to me that maybe we're not. Maybe we're a multiparty system, which uses the following election procedure:
Step 1. The many parties form coalitions. Step 2. A preliminary election is used to select two finalists from among the various coalitions. The two finalists are arbitrarily called the "Democrat" and the "Republican," but these labels are generally meaningless - in reality, it's simply "Finalist A" and "Finalist B". Step 3. A choice is made between the two finalists.
Of course, a new voting system that eliminates vote-stealers, so that the *right* finalist gets chosen, would be an obvious improvement. But I don't know if we need a new voting system to give third parties a "better chance." Perhaps they already have a good chance, during the primaries.
- RobLa 18:51, 17 Jul 2004 (PDT): With a good voting system, there'd be no possible way that someone like Bush could have won or even have come close to winning. McCain wouldn't have gotten knocked out in the bastion of centrism known as South Carolina (sic). With a good system, when a Republican wins, we at least have some say as to which Republican it is. The worst that could have happened in 2000 would have been a McCain victory, which given the current circumstances, doesn't seem so bad.
- The current system is a crapshoot. It seems there should be a little more certainty to a choice that matters so much.
--Joshyelon 01:00, 29 Jun 2004 (PDT) What are your thoughts on how to get the necessary changes to the constitution/constitutions?
1) The suggestion that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party should merge ruin any chance of most Greens or Libs backing the plan, including this one. If you just say "should enter a grand tactical alliance", I (and I imagine most others would) probably enthusiastically adopt it.
2) Thanks to bipartisan gerrymandering and geographic clumping, most elections for smaller office (state rep.,etc) in the United States are "safe districts" for one party or the other. The "safe state" strategy can carry over into local elections, where third parties actually have some chance.
3) One way to simultaneously build support for third parties, votes for Democrats, and awareness of electoral reform, is to encourage third parties to run "lesser evil" campaigns. I get nauseated when I walk by those "Kerry-Edwards for a stronger America" sign or when I hear John Kerry say that he would've "finished the job" of razing Faloojeh. But I'd gladly hold a sign for Kerry that read "Vote for Kerry--he's less likely to invade Iran". The point of the sign: it's okay to vote for the lesser evil, but we're not going to forget that he's evil.
DanKeshet 18:23, 17 Oct 2004 (PDT)
The Electoral College and Third Parties
Additional parties (third parties) have an opportunity to compete in the Presidential election because of the Electoral College system. The argument they should make is that if you are in any state where one candidate leads another sufficiently in the polls (for example, by more than 5%) your vote for a main party is wasted because you have no hope of influencing the outcome of the election. Therefore, you are better to vote for an additional party candidate because you are sending a signal to whoever gets elected about the kinds of policies and political philosophy you favor.
In the current election, where Bush and Kerry are running neck and neck, there is some counterargument that the popular vote will give legitimacy to the winner. But this is not the common case. Take Clinton vs. Dole. There was no hope that Dole would be elected and any Republican who voted for him, especially in a Blue state, was just wasting their vote. They could have voted in California, for example, for the Libertarian, Reform or the AIP candidate. That would have indicated their political philosophy and what policies they wanted to see.
As long as the Electoral College lasts there will be backwaters states where your vote is unlikely to make the decision as to who wins. If you can't influence the outcome of the election, at least you can send a message as to what kind of government you want.
Frankly, this is always true in a national (and most state) elections. I've only voted in one election where the outcome was decided by a single vote and that was a local election for a bond measure. So, in almost every case your vote is wasted if you try to use it to decide the outcome. If you use it to show your preferences, you have more power.
