Voting Systems

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

Hi folks,

I am an advocate of:

- Getting rid of all political parties; one runs on her/his name, reputation

- Get rid of a candidate winning without a majority of the vote => Ranked Choice Voting

- Using mail-in ballots everywhere

Looks like some people do not agree with me:  A coalition of national conservative election groups last month warned Wisconsin’s legislative leaders that RCV and Final Five are “intended to dramatically push our politics to the Left.”

How a new way to vote is gaining traction in states — and could transform US politics – Oregon Capital Chronicle

I have yet to see where this is better:  RCV is being paired with a new system for primaries known as Final Five/ Final Four — that advances multiple candidates

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 1,853]

Why should the GOP ever support a system that removes their structural, built-in advantage in elections?

[olofscience 464]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

- Getting rid of all political parties; one runs on her/his name, reputation

When you have Ranked Choice voting, you don't really need to take this extra step. It works out mathematically:

 

[jakee 1,379]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

When you have Ranked Choice voting, you don't really need to take this extra step. It works out mathematically

The other thing is that without political parties / alliances you just can’t get anything done. How you would create and negotiate legislation that has a chance of passing when everyone is singing from their own hymn sheet I have no idea - and regardless of what the libertarian nutters would like to believe (not you Jerry), the government does actually have to be able to do stuff.

 

Plus due to human beings natural tendencies to clump together then without political parties there would still be political alliances and factions, the voting public would just be even less aware of what they were.

Edited December 20, 2023 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,319]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

The other thing is that without political parties / alliances you just can’t get anything done. How you would create and negotiate legislation that has a chance of passing when everyone is singing from their own hymn sheet I have no idea

You would have to go by merit as opposed to party affiliation. But regardless, even without party affiliations, people will generally form caucuses under these types of systems.

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

The other thing is that without political parties / alliances you just can’t get anything done. How you would create and negotiate legislation that has a chance of passing when everyone is singing from their own hymn sheet I have no idea - and regardless of what the libertarian nutters would like to believe (not you Jerry), the government does actually have to be able to do stuff.

 

Plus due to human beings natural tendencies to clump together then without political parties there would still be political alliances and factions, the voting public would just be even less aware of what they were.

Hi jakee,

Nebraska has a state legislature that is non-political party; it seems to work quite well.

As for:  due to human beings natural tendencies to clump together

This is still true without party affiliation.  It would be around the issues.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,379]

13 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

Nebraska has a state legislature that is non-political party; it seems to work quite well.

Right, but that's really just a technicality, isn't it? Nebraska doesn't exist in a vacuum. The political parties still exist, and all but one of the state legislators are registered members of the two major parties.