What would happen if...

[Quintessence]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican. No party loyalty/ political career choices to skew our consciences , no bills stuffed at the last minute with unrelated pork, no deals/ vote buying, filibustering, sit ins, walk outs, or $20 danish pastries thrown in the trash!

Unless anyone really still thinks that politicians are more intelligent, honest, trustworthy, have more real world experience, or are in any way more qualified than American citizens to give advice on anything? other than how to be a successful politician?!

 

[suncowiam]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

I dunno about the proposal but I agree with the issue needing to be fixed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican. No party loyalty/ political career choices to skew our consciences , no bills stuffed at the last minute with unrelated pork, no deals/ vote buying, filibustering, sit ins, walk outs, or $20 danish pastries thrown in the trash!

That would quickly lead to a chaotic mess of a bi-polar mob rule.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would quickly lead to a chaotic mess of a bi-polar mob rule.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Koldo]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

Wouldn't that make people vote for a party they don't want just to don't waste their second vote ? Couldn't that lead to the odd situation where you end up electing someone that no one really wanted to be elected ?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That would quickly lead to a chaotic mess of a bi-polar mob rule.

So argued every totalitarian dictator from Nero to Stalin.

There is a reason we have citizen juries in the free world, if you are the accused, you would take 'mob rule' over a panel of government appointed lawyers to decide your fate any day. The latter is what they use(d) in North Korea, USSR, NAZI Germany for the same rationale as yours, you can't trust the people to make important decisions.. getting people to actually believe that themselves is the trick

 

[Nietzsche]

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican. No party loyalty/ political career choices to skew our consciences , no bills stuffed at the last minute with unrelated pork, no deals/ vote buying, filibustering, sit ins, walk outs, or $20 danish pastries thrown in the trash!

Unless anyone really still thinks that politicians are more intelligent, honest, trustworthy, have more real world experience, or are in any way more qualified than American citizens to give advice on anything? other than how to be a successful politician?!

Tyranny by majority, you mean?

 

[Koldo]

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican. No party loyalty/ political career choices to skew our consciences , no bills stuffed at the last minute with unrelated pork, no deals/ vote buying, filibustering, sit ins, walk outs, or $20 danish pastries thrown in the trash!

Unless anyone really still thinks that politicians are more intelligent, honest, trustworthy, have more real world experience, or are in any way more qualified than American citizens to give advice on anything? other than how to be a successful politician?!

You would need people to be actually engaged in the voting process. You would need them to have the means to vote, the means to read AND understand what is being voted on, and you would need to make sure the system is properly secure. This is far from trivial.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sounds good to me!

sounds like congress!

A two party system, inherently takes the wide range of mostly reasonable nuanced positions, that everyday thoughtful folks like yourself have, and chucks them all into one of two buckets of extremity, left or right, black or white, yes or no.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You would need people to be actually engaged in the voting process. You would need them to have the means to vote, the means to read AND understand what is being voted on, and you would need to make sure the system is properly secure. This is far from trivial.

Come off it- you seriously think that politicians, of all people, read and understand what they are voting on???!!!

They don't even pretend to, they don't have time, countless fat is thrown in at the last minute based explicitly on that. Remember they had to pass Obamacare first so they could read it later?

Again, we have a jury system which is perfectly capable of selecting a reasonably qualified cross section of society for particular cases

Ask yourself, if you wanted advice on an issue related to health, science, religion- you name it-- would you go seek a politician? You'd probably know somebody personally who you would consider far more qualified yes?


I'm not saying politicians are completely ignorant of everything. If I wanted advice on hair and makeup, giving speeches, smearing people, making money without working, hiring prostitutes discreetly, etc etc OK I might defer to a politician!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Under the original Illinois Constitution, each district had three representatives, and each voter was allowed three votes: you could vote for any three candidates who were running for office, with the top three vote-getters being elected...if there were three or more than three running...our you could vote for two (1.5 votes each)...or you could vote for one of them (3 votes).

This pretty much ensured that the minority party in the district would get represented in the House, because the minority party voters would plunk their votes, while the majority party would spread theirs over two or three candidates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So argued every totalitarian dictator from Nero to Stalin.

Even the Founding Fathers were against a pure Democracy because to them it is synonymous with mob-rule and social chaos and instability.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, we have a jury system which is perfectly capable of selecting a reasonably qualified cross section of society for particular cases

Juries are not a form of democracy, and when you really break it down they are, overall, terrible at making decisions based on evidence, logic, and reason.
The reason we have juries is you aren't "tried by your enemies." Rather than those who accuse you judging you, you are judged by the "random average citizen," who themselves are screened before being selected.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds good to me!

If legislation being up to the whims of the majority sounds good to you. Personally, I'd much rather not have every Tom, Jane, Dick, and Sally voting based on absolutely nothing more than what they read on Facebook, and that is exactly what would happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

If legislation being up to the whims of the majority sounds good to you. Personally, I'd much rather not have every Tom, Jane, Dick, and Sally voting based on absolutely nothing more than what they read on Facebook, and that is exactly what would happen.

There'd be problems.
But we could try something new, & see how it works out.

 

[Sonofason]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

Interesting idea...it would be like having a first choice and a second choice. There could be the strange event where everyone's second choice wins the election. But that's okay, because if everyone wanted the same guy as their first choice, he'd probably be the one to win.

 

[Sonofason]

Perhaps everyone, assuming they had two votes had to place one vote for a democrat, and one vote for a republican?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If legislation being up to the whims of the majority sounds good to you. Personally, I'd much rather not have every Tom, Jane, Dick, and Sally voting based on absolutely nothing more than what they read on Facebook, and that is exactly what would happen.

There'd be problems.
But we could try something new, & see how it works out.

Yes... legislation being up to the whims of the majority, as opposed to the whims of a small entrenched political elite? It's the lesser of two evils perhaps, but I think the vast majority of ordinary people are actually perfectly intelligent, honest, well meaning. I can't confidently say the same for politicians/ lawyers I've known personally.

And between Tom, Jane, Dick and Sally, you have a far better chance of someone who can actually run a lemonade stand profitably, is not beholden to their party voting record, constituents, past deals, and can freely vote their conscience. I don't use face book at all, how about Hillary?

Shadow Wolf, polls show that Tom, Jane, Dick and Sally generally support more gun control by the millions, which is blocked politically. - Given a referendum, you wouldn't want 'mob rule' to have their say? You'd rather the handful of more 'educated sensible' politicians deny them their naive whims, because they know best?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There'd be problems.
But we could try something new, & see how it works out.

And there's a damn good reason the Founders didn't try Democracy. What they did do was pretty lame, and the improvements we've made would've had very limited success if everyone got to vote on the issue. Realistically, people are stupid, the state attracts the absolute worst our species has to offer, neither should have total control.
And with Hillary's win, it may show the Founder's plan working out because it will spell the end of the Conservative Reign over the Supreme Court, reflecting several generations of social change. The inferno of the Tea Party failed to take over because it died out quickly, and their brief moment and decline and dwindling influence is something designed into the stagnated nature of the US government. If Hillary gets to appoint a second Justice to replace another Conservative, it's essentially "game over" for Social Conservatives who are going to end up loosing a ton of fights over wanting the Bible to dictate state law.