Is there anything more important than voting reform?

[blahface]

The American system makes it nearly impossible to get good honest people elected to congress. Not only do weak campaign finance laws make it easier for candidates to be bought, but our first-past-the-post voting system ensures that we can only choose between bad and worst. All other issues are meaningless if we can't get people in office that will address them.

So why isn't this issue at the forefront of the progressive groups agenda? Most people don't even know the different kinds of voting systems and the strengths and weaknesses of each. Even on regular political forums this issue doesn't seem to be addressed too often. Am I overstating the importance of voting reform? If not, why do you think this isn't a more popular topic?

[Bakustra]

Well, first of all, challenging the voting system would be difficult if not impossible in the US. Second of all, the electoral system is only half the problem, and the other half, the fact that we're a presidential system, is quite literally impossible to change in the US. Without a parliamentary or semi-parliamentary system, then no matter the electoral rules, a single winner still has a massive advantage with the Presidency, which would probably have a similar Duverger-style effect on party behavior and consolidate them. Granted, it may be possible, but it's a massive uphill battle followed by a Sisyphean task.

[Simon_Jester]

Our voting system, messed up as it is, could function and has in the past; I think what screws it up is more the campaign finance than the details of how citizens' votes translate into political victories.

As long as corporations can back candidates, getting rid of first-past-the-post voting really isn't going to change very much. If corporations can't back candidates, even first past the post voting will work well enough.

[Knife]

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

[blahface]

Well, first of all, challenging the voting system would be difficult if not impossible in the US. Second of all, the electoral system is only half the problem, and the other half, the fact that we're a presidential system, is quite literally impossible to change in the US. Without a parliamentary or semi-parliamentary system, then no matter the electoral rules, a single winner still has a massive advantage with the Presidency, which would probably have a similar Duverger-style effect on party behavior and consolidate them. Granted, it may be possible, but it's a massive uphill battle followed by a Sisyphean task.

It might be very difficult to get that voting system implemented for the presidential election, but i think that it is very feasible get it implemented state by state in the house and senate elections. Instant Runoff Voting is starting to be used in some cities and towns. If we can get an alternate voting system implemented locally, it isn't inconceivable that we can get it implemented statewide.

Unfortunately though, the only alternative voting system that seems to be being tried is IRV. Although IRV is better than plurality, it is one of the worst alternatives. I think the most pragmatic alternative would be having a non-partisan primary through approval voting and then have a top two runoff for the general election.

[blahface]

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

I think we should definitely be concerned with campaign finance reform, but we shouldn't let that be the bottleneck. In order to make any significant gain on that, we are going to have to wait until one of the conservative supreme court justices is replaced. FPTP compounds the problem of bought politicians. This election year a lot of people were very bitter with the two choices they had. If our voting system that allowed our citizens to vote their conscience, I think we would have seen a lot of third party candidates being elected this year.

[Bakustra]

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

I think we should definitely be concerned with campaign finance reform, but we shouldn't let that be the bottleneck. In order to make any significant gain on that, we are going to have to wait until one of the conservative supreme court justices is replaced. FPTP compounds the problem of bought politicians. This election year a lot of people were very bitter with the two choices they had. If our voting system that allowed our citizens to vote their conscience, I think we would have seen a lot of third party candidates being elected this year.

No, we would not. In a presidential system, only one candidate can win the executive branch. This has a similar effect to plurality voting in consolidating parties, and is probably why the UK still has a 2.5 party system under plurality vote- they don't have the mechanical effects of a presidential system. Parties will still consolidate in order to have a better chance of winning the presidency. France does not have these problems, sure, but France is semi-presidential anyways- Parliament has the power to dismiss the Government and the President is not the formal head of government, but shares power with the Premier.

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

A not-insignificant part of voter apathy, and the reason for the Tea Party's managing to win a handful of elections, is because of dissatisfaction with the two parties. Reform is necessary to address that. The US also has the unique problem of continuous voter fatigue because of our plethora of elections and elected offices, which again would take massive reform to address. Campaign finance reform should be a high priority, but I don't think there's much about the current system that really warrants preserving at this point, either.

[Questor]

Redistricting reform should also help significantly. Next year should be very interesting in California, I am going to be watching the information from the Redistricting Commission very closely.

[Stark]

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

Why? Your system is structurally broken. Bakustra is right in that it's nigh-impossible to fix (largely due to attitudes like yours and the very structural problems themselves) but the answer to 'democracy implemented badly' is not 'blame those damn corporations'.

[Guardsman Bass]

Well, first of all, challenging the voting system would be difficult if not impossible in the US.

More specifically, doing a massive change in how the system works (such as eliminating First-Past-The-Post elections) wold probably require constitutional amendments. There are only two ways to do that: 1)Get two-thirds of the states' legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to come up with amendments, which then have to be ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states, or 2)get an amendment approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states.

The first is almost impossible, and opens up a very dangerous can of worms. Along with progressive amendments, you'll also get all kinds of conservative crap (including a constitutional ban on abortion and gay marriage).

The second has to go through large majorities in both the Senate and Congress, who would be more or less voting on an amendment that might very well wipe out their jobs. That's not going to happen unless the political pressure to do so is widespread and overwhelming (like what happened with the 17th Amendment, which mandated direct elections for Senators).

[Simon_Jester]

Indeed, I think the combination of too much private money poured into campaigns coupled with low voter turn out needs to be addressed before we throw the baby out with the bath water and do 'voter reform'.

Why? Your system is structurally broken. Bakustra is right in that it's nigh-impossible to fix (largely due to attitudes like yours and the very structural problems themselves) but the answer to 'democracy implemented badly' is not 'blame those damn corporations'.

Because it would be a lot easier to do campaign finance reform than it would be to fix the 'structurally broken' presidency.

Most Americans have at least some vague sense that it is bad for politicians to take bribes, which can be exploited when pushing for campaign finance reform. It's harder to convince people that they need to rewrite the basic structural parts of their nation's constitution.

I mean come on, if it was the reverse and it was parliamentary democracy having the structural problems, don't try and tell me it would be easy to convince the Commonwealth nations to abandon it in favor of something else.

[Terralthra]

Well, first of all, challenging the voting system would be difficult if not impossible in the US. Second of all, the electoral system is only half the problem, and the other half, the fact that we're a presidential system, is quite literally impossible to change in the US. Without a parliamentary or semi-parliamentary system, then no matter the electoral rules, a single winner still has a massive advantage with the Presidency, which would probably have a similar Duverger-style effect on party behavior and consolidate them. Granted, it may be possible, but it's a massive uphill battle followed by a Sisyphean task.

It is not literally impossible to change the Presidential nature of the system. All it would take is a constitutional amendment heavily amending Article II, passed by a super-majority of both houses and ratified by a super-majority of states. That's highly unlikely, even figuratively impossible, but it is not literally impossible.

[blahface]

More specifically, doing a massive change in how the system works (such as eliminating First-Past-The-Post elections) wold probably require constitutional amendments.

Are you just talking about presidential elections? As I said earlier, this kind of reform could be done with the House and Senate on a state by state basis without a ridiculously tedious barrier. One this is done with the House and Senate, it will be much easier to pass an amendment to reform the electoral college which elects the president.

[Stark]

I mean come on, if it was the reverse and it was parliamentary democracy having the structural problems, don't try and tell me it would be easy to convince the Commonwealth nations to abandon it in favor of something else.

What are you talking about? Don't get tribal because your system is inferior. Here I was thinking democracy was about sovereignty deriving from the people, and not 'wah wah wah what if your system was broken'. If you idiots hadn't made presidents deities you wouldn't have these problems. Unless you think coming up with a workable definition of 'corruption' or 'bribery' that will be made law is remotely practical...

What Bakustra probably means is that while its possible within the legal framework of the constitution, it's politically impossible due to brainwashing and inertia (and, of course, corruption). Is change going to come from outside the system? I doubt it, not in America.

[Todeswind]

Its not really a matter of tribalism, most systems have readily apparent structural flaws in them but by and large people are hesitant to change them. It's the reason why obviously flawed institutions like the Monarchy of the UK or the bipartisan system still exist. People tend to dislike change.

[Carinthium]

What do people think would be the effect of reforms to the U.S system effectively excluding the President from any influence over Congressional legislation? Just suggesting an idea.

[Norseman]

Well, first of all, challenging the voting system would be difficult if not impossible in the US.

More specifically, doing a massive change in how the system works (such as eliminating First-Past-The-Post elections) wold probably require constitutional amendments. There are only two ways to do that: 1)Get two-thirds of the states' legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to come up with amendments, which then have to be ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states, or 2)get an amendment approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states.

Uhm no it wouldn't require anything of the sort, all that's required is that the various states implement changes in their election system. There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires First-Past-The-Post elections.

[Stark]

Its not really a matter of tribalism, most systems have readily apparent structural flaws in them but by and large people are hesitant to change them. It's the reason why obviously flawed institutions like the Monarchy of the UK or the bipartisan system still exist. People tend to dislike change.

Except the monarchy does nothing except please tourists. Try again.

PS, there's a difference between a legal fact that is never used and an everyday fact of law that is central to politics. If you think the Queen impacts UK politics as much as the President impacts US politics, you are on crack.

[Questor]

PS, there's a difference between a legal fact that is never used and an everyday fact of law that is central to politics. If you think the Queen impacts UK politics as much as the President impacts US politics, you are on crack.

My understanding is that outside a couple of circumstances that don't come up often, the queen has about as much effect on UK politics as the US President's kids, if not less. Is this more or less correct?

[Stark]

Pretty much. Comparing the vestigal monarchy to the day-to-day executive of the US is ridiculous.

[Sea Skimmer]

I’m ready for the several states to convene a new constitutional convention about now. The problem is that would make people go nuts; it would be Second Amendment Doomsday as far as many millions of people with guns go. The only way to even remotely do it would be to first have some kind of interim document of negotiation every state ratifies which establishes basic principals and rights which MUST be in the new constitution. Also everything would have to be unanimity and good luck seeing a place like Florida vote to disband the federal government.

Also while this would totally bypass the federal level of government, it hardly changes the political parties involved.

[Todeswind]

Its not really a matter of tribalism, most systems have readily apparent structural flaws in them but by and large people are hesitant to change them. It's the reason why obviously flawed institutions like the Monarchy of the UK or the bipartisan system still exist. People tend to dislike change.

Except the monarchy does nothing except please tourists. Try again.

PS, there's a difference between a legal fact that is never used and an everyday fact of law that is central to politics. If you think the Queen impacts UK politics as much as the President impacts US politics, you are on crack.

Other than being the Head of State of both Cannada and Australia and costing your Government £40m per year simply for having been born you mean?

[Zed]

The Queen doesn't cost the government money - she makes it. I recall that in exchange for that grant, she gives the government the proceeds of her properties... which exceed 40 million pounds.

[Todeswind]

No. I mean it costs the taxpayer the equivalent of 40 million pounds a year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8124022.stm

[Eleas]

Except the monarchy does nothing except please tourists. Try again.

PS, there's a difference between a legal fact that is never used and an everyday fact of law that is central to politics. If you think the Queen impacts UK politics as much as the President impacts US politics, you are on crack.

Other than being the Head of State of both Cannada and Australia and costing your Government £40m per year simply for having been born you mean?

Gosh, I'm silly. Here I thought Stark was talking about things like ratifying wars and setting the domestic policy of a superpower, and not the no-doubt-crucial tasks of providing a focus for tabloid rag gossip and officiating ribbon-cutting ceremonies.