Not just about Democrats or sides winning. A proper democracy needs the vast majority of the population to vote in order to work and make sense. If the vast majority of the population does vote Republican, then so be it. But when the elections are won by a voting bloc that comprised of only 30% of the country in a non-representative, 2 party system, then it only serves to weaken the concept of democracy, regardless of who the 30% voted for.
Heck I would go as far as to say that had we had a much larger turnout, we would have never gotten here in the first place. Studies show that low voter turnout actually contributes to our political polarization.
The election is halted, and nominations must be re-submitted, preferably with completely new nominees. after a period of a few weeks for new campaigning, another vote takes place and we try again and again until the parties decide to get their heads out of their asses and put forward good candidates, not just whatever stooge will work for the donors.
Elections typically take place quite a while before their inauguration. there's time enough for 2 or even 3 re-runs before the inauguration. you could even bump the election up a little earlier just to increase that buffer. in the event that there are too many re-runs and it runs over inauguration day, the seat is left vacant until we can sort it out. i know that sounds scary, but it's not so bad, it just means, in some cases, the government won't be able to pass anything until it's resolved.
New election, the two people running are executed for Senate seats and the president, offices below that are barred from holding public office below that.
That's why i mentioned the "no confidence" option. voting would be mandatory for all able citizens, but you would also have the option to vote "no confidence." which is like saying "none of the above." if "no confidence" gets a large enough vote, then the election is sacked, and must be re-run with completely new nominees. this would eliminate the "lesser of two evils" bullshit and force whatever parties exist to put forward good candidates.
i get that, but we've got a very real problem with corruption in this country. The goal of Russia's election meddling was to erode, and in some cases outright destroy, the average american's trust in his electoral system. We're expecting to see foul play in almost every contentious election now. In a climate like that, the less complicated the system, the better. Once the Average american can have his faith in the system restored (if it ever can be), then moving to a system like what you described would be a good idea. Right now, though, I fear all that would be treated as if it were too obscured and easy to game. It might actually create more voter apathy, not less. Don't forget, that most americans are uneducated and don't really get what's going on in their government a lot of the time. right now, they understand 'vote for that guy, that guy wins.' but if you go all jeffersonian on them they're going to feel like they're playing baccarat and losing at every hand.
Why is "the third party issue" something that needs to be nipped in the bud? Is it a problem that some people don't identify with red or blue? Is it just easier if there are only two parties so one can be clearly labeled as "EVIL" and the other as "GOOD"? I don't understand why some people fight so hard to restrict the voting system to just binary choices.
I misspoke. It's not the EXISTENCE of third parties that is the issue. It's that seldom are they VIABLE and often times creates the spoiler effect (vote splitting), and can become actively detrimental to the very 3rd party voter's own agenda by empowering the opposition.
Single transferrable voting systems actually solve this very problem by allowing you to move your votes from your top candidate to the next closest candidate of your choosing until they all coalesce to form a majority.
i.e. say you're a hardcore libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. You have on your card the following order for candidates: 1. Johnson, 2. Stein, 3. Trump, 4. Clinton.
Say that during the election vote tally, Johnson came up dead last, your vote for johnson would then move to Stein, your second choice. And anyone who voted for Johnson would have their votes go to their second choice. Let's say that Stein still came in dead last after this recount, so she's eliminated, and your vote then is moved to Trump.
Let's say at this point Trump was able to gather the required 51%. That would mean the process stops and he wins the election.
What this system allows you to do is to STILL vote for 3rd party, but also have a backup plan in place so that if your 3rd party candidate doesn't stick, you don't just effectively throw out your vote.
The fact that 3rd parties can't be competitive in our FPTP system needs to be "nipped in the bud". FPTP guarantees 2 parties because 3rd parties basically split the electorate, allowing one party to more easily win. Ranked choice systems, on the other hand, allow for more parties because people are allowed to vote FOR candidates they like instead of AGAINST candidates they dislike.
they're also tribalistic messes. Primaries do not give everybody a chance to vote, only members of that "party" and as we've seen in the 2016 election, can be straight up rigged.
This is exactly the system we have in Brazil now and it never ever ever worked in favor of the population. 100% of the presidents we had so far since 1988 were corrupts and before that we had a military dictatorship. It wouldn't surprise me if you're a brazilian because in every election everybody talks about this myth that we can vote for "nule" and it would make a difference. In the end, when we see that one candidate is far ahead on the polls, we choose to vote for the lesser evil because we can't ever be sure that the "other side" will also vote for no confidence
Assuming what you're saying applies to American culture in the same way, then there's no hope for democracy. Bring on the dictators, because this voting for the "lesser of two evils" bullshit has got to come to an end at any cost
I'm curious, has there been any studies on the popularity of this idea? Is this something that dems want but Republicans refuse to go for, or is this something that everyone wants but the politicians (who would lose their jobs) refuse to go for? Or is this something that most people just don't think about?
It seems to be pretty much impossible for any reasonable person to NOT agree that changing from first past the post is a good idea.
I haven't read studies but it's certainly an idea that pops up on the internet a lot. make of that what you will. It seems to me like politicians in general would not be threatened by this idea, but that it would require amendments to the constitution to get done. in this deeply partisan era, that's basically impossible. I think people don't talk about it for two reasons: 1) as stated above, it's very difficult, and people don't want to waste their breath and time on it. and 2) the concept itself is seen as "complicated" by an electorate that is, by and large, poorly educated and unable to spend their bankrupt attention spans on the mechanics of a system like ranked choice voting.
for those two reasons, if you tried to campaign for something like this, I think the predominant response you would get would be a "shrug."
While I agree, that would require such a monumental restructuring of our system that I don't think it would ever happen.
Consider that:
Each State sends 2 Senators, in different elections: No way to do anything but FPTP for this
12 States send 1 or 2 Representatives: Anything but FPTP wouldn't make sense
Representatives are meant to represent small, local districts: Eliminating FPTP would mean they'd represent entire States, like Senators.
Each State's electoral process is prescribed by that State: For States where it would make sense, it would require amending the State's constitution.
The President is directly elected: Unlike parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister is just the leader of the winningest party, the Presidency is a singular position chosen on its own national ballot. Nothing but FPTP makes sense for this.
To truly get rid of FPTP we'd basically need a whole new government — major amendments to both the federal constitution and those of most States. I just don't see it happening. I think we need figure out a way to improve what we currently have, like automatic runoffs when no candidate receives a majority, and computer-generated congressional districts to eliminate gerrymandering. Although even those would require constitutional amendments.
Well, it's still technically FPTP, just in Electoral College votes instead of popular votes. Though if any candidate fails to reach a majority (270), the election is sent to the House of Representatives to vote for the winner.
un-elected representatives from each State who could theoretically ignore the votes people cast
The Electoral College is comprised of electors, determined by the State legislatures, matching the number of Senators + Representatives each state has (so 538 total today). While they're unelected, they are chosen by elected bodies. In 29 States, the electors are bound to cast their ballot by rules (usually by popular vote in their state). But this is widely considered unconstitutional and would probably be struck down in court if ever seriously challenged.
It's important to note that the US wasn't designed as a pure democracy, but as a republic. Since the US was originally conceived to be very state-centric, the idea was to have the people elect their state representatives, and then have the state legislatures determine the federal government. The original constitutional conventions operated this way, where the state legislatures sent delegates with specific instructions/parameters. Senators were also determined by the state legislatures until the 17th amendment in 1913. And the Electoral College still technically works this way.
Also, even though our election is held on the same day nationwide, it's not truly a nationwide election, but rather 51 simultaneous state (+ DC) elections. So theoretically (and this used to be done), states could just remove the presidential choices from their ballots, and have the state legislatures vote for which electors to send to the Electoral College.
not enough. people would rather binge Orange is the New Black and grill hamburgers than vote on a day off. it needs to be compulsory, as in failing to cast your vote comes with a big fat fucking fine, that you get back on your tax return if you prove that you voted consistently for the following year, or something like that.
Get paid to vote, or get fined if you don't. And voting is a 2 day holiday, employers cannot compel you to be at work unless you're in critical services (hospital, police, etc., hence the 2 day holiday so they can split shift and get time to go vote). I would happily give a ride to someone who wants to vote if they can't get to a voting station on their own, where I live you typically have to drive a while to get to a voting station and there is no public transportation to get you there. We need to do something to get people to the polling stations, we need to make it a "no excuses" sort of thing (I guess if you're in the hospital having surgery or doing surgery you have an excuse) as much as possible. Single Transferable Vote would also be a damned fine idea instead of First Past the Post.
somebody else mentioned single transferable in another comment, and my only argument against it was basically that the Russian meddling and other elements of corporate corruption through our government have cast a pall of doubt and distrust on our electoral system. making the system more complicated might have the effect of creating even more voter apathy, since a large swath of americans (who are now compelled to vote by law) would completely fail to understand how that system works. they'd feel like they're playing a game for which they don't know the rules and losing at every hand.
Again, education. People are voting now and don't have a clue how their government works - blaming the President for setting taxes too high when the President doesn't set the tax rate (that's Congress), blaming the President for blowing through the debt ceiling (again, that's Congress - they set the tax rate and then set the budget, if taxes are less than budget then the President must borrow money to enforce the budget because That's The Law - and the "debt ceiling" is not in the Constitution, that's a law enacted by - you guessed it, Congress - to try to control spending and Congress directly controls the debt ceiling, not the President), blaming the President for spending too much (again - Congress. Sure the President is required to submit a budget to Congress but they have no compunction to even read it. They can use it, toss it aside and use their own, or amend what the President submitted and then send it back but it's Congress that sets the Federal budget, not the President). The biggest bleat from "Conservatives" in the United States is how "Obama bloated the national debt to $20 Trillion dollars" (next week it will be $25 Trillion, then $50 Trillion, etc., just like Fox News reporting how his trip to India was costing taxpayers billions of dollars a day and it wasn't...) and the Republicans controlled Congress for six of his eight years in office. But do you hear anything about that, about the Republican Congress that blew through that money? Hell no. It's all Obama's fault, according to the people who have no idea how government works.
So I don't see this making anything worse. It has a chance to improve things though.
I wouldn't rule out shortening the campaigning period to 12-14 weeks for the primaries and 6-7 weeks for the general too. There is no reason election season needs to last a year and a half.
you know something though...i think it has its advantages. the way a campaign works, the candidates automatically start digging at eachother, trying to drag up any scandal or dirt they can in order to smear their opponent. Now, this is dirty and a shitty way of getting votes, but it's important because it gives the public a chance to find out about every skeleton in the closet of the candidates they might otherwise have voted for. It's important that we have some way to divest these candidates of all privacy and secrecy and expose every part of them and their lives and the personalities to the public that's expected to vote for them.
the way a campaign works, the candidates automatically start digging at eachother, trying to drag up any scandal or dirt they can in order to smear their opponent.
That's the problem I have with modern politics. I don't want to hear about why you think the other guy is worse, I want to hear about what you plan on doing to make the country better. Appointing an independent investigatory body who can present the skeletons objectively and without spin would be better than letting the other guy spin the situation in the worst possible light.
In my opinion the Brits do it right, they have 25 working days from the time their parliament is dissolved to campaign before the election.
ppointing an independent investigatory body who can present the skeletons objectively and without spin
That is inherently contradictory. I think society would have to change a great deal before we could ever trust any group to be impartial in this way. You can't even trust the Supreme court to be that impartial. an organization like that is impossible to create.
Ultimately, I just think our long election season leads to a lot of the voter apathy because so much of it is so negative. "She's a baby murderer, he's a shill for corporate interests, they want your families to starve" all of it political hyperbole and entirely unnecessary.
These elections really need to be shortened and candidates need to spend more time focusing on their platform and less about lobbing bombs at each other. The Court of Public Opinion will sort out any problems that may not be revealed by an election, look at what is happening with all these sex assault allegations. I'd also argue that the Special Counsel investigation into Trump is doing a pretty damn good job of self policing its impartiality.
That was one of the reasons i suggested a 'no confidence' option, so we can all, collectively, say that both candidates are shit and force candidates to come forward that the people can actually get behind.
as for the special counsel, that's because they have an enemy. they have a target. that's different from making an impartial decision between two parties that are ostensibly equal.
that's different from making an impartial decision between two parties that are ostensibly equal.
It's not about making an impartial decision, it's about presenting all the history of a candidate good and bad with no bias or spin. Candidate A spent 4 years in rehab in his 20s for cocaine addiction? We deserve to know. Candidate B used his position as a former state representative to get his daughter off a DUI? We need to know that too. Candidates shouldn't sling mud.
This, along with a paid day off for voting and paper ballots that can be recounted by hand when necessary. Voting should be treated like jury duty which is one of your obligations for living in a democracy.
i'd imagine it's the same as the percentage of people we already have voting on broken logic or poor research. The uneducated vote is a problem, but it's a separate problem, with a separate solution. excluding the apathetic from our elections does not fix it, it just strengthens the voice of the ones who vote poorly with passion.
I agree, it's a separate problem. My friend and I tried to hash out some kind of comprehensive solution over a few beers, but we were unable. Everything from healthcare, to employment, to education, to net neutrality, etc. got involved at some point.
people get up in arms about voter ID laws, because they say it equals voter suppression. more often than not, it does, but if you couple it with mandatory voting, then that argument is completely out the window.
Independants can still vote for their independant candidates...i wasn't proposing they be taken off the ballot or anything like that.
And i think you're wrong about that. plenty of Republicans are disgusted with their canddiates (Roy Moore much?) but are too "principled" to vote for a democrat, and giving them the option to strike "no confidence" and have a chance at a new R candidate that they're not disgusted with would be a very viable vote to cast. I think plenty of them would.
suddenly all the gerrymandering and voter suppression in the world becomes a moot point, as the poor and disenfranchised come out and do their civic duty, because they no longer have a choice, and every scuzzy corrupt fuck is run out of office in a hurry.
honestly, even the tactic of relying on the undeducted to get voted in will no longer work for the GOP. Most Americans respond to one or two first-impression like bits of information about a candidate. one ad reaches them that says "Roy Moore is a pedophile." and that's all it will take to lose their vote. Running massive smear campaigns back and forth won't work either, because it'll just result on getting a No Confidence vote and having both nominees replaced.
This way, the only way you can honestly win an election is to have a good platform that appeals to the majority of people. Fantasy world right?
If forced to vote, I would vote against whichever party brought in mandatory voting because fuck you, you don't tell me what to do.
The turnout that happens now is statistically significant and a reasonable representation of the overall desire. Maybe not enough people vote on your side and you should campaign for them to do so, but don't force people to do things.
i don't see what you have to lose when being told to vote. you've got no good reason to resist other than "don't tell me what to do!" that's just childish. take 5 minutes out of your day a few times a year. i'd even be for making state, local, and federal election days holidays, so that you have plenty of time to get it done, but it's still key that people stop making excuses and get to the polls without exception. there's no good practical reason not to have mandatory voting, as long as there's a "no confidence" option.
particpate in jury duty, pay their taxes, pay for their crimes, pay for damage they cause to others property, appear in court, tell the truth under oath, and hire people without descriminating against them relative to any protected classification.
I mean, that's not all of it, of course, but those are a few examples of the kinds of things I, and anybody who believes in the rule of law would use for to make people do.
mandatory voting is just another one of those things. Society needs it. stop being stubborn.
Society doesn't need another mandatory activity. Voting is a right, not a demand.
As I said, voting turnout is much more statistically significant than most scientific studies and already represents a good sample of the population.
If you want more people to vote like you then you should get out there and campaign for them to vote your way. Perhaps we should make campaigning for your favorite candidate mandatory?
You must spend at least 6 hours before an election standing on the street waiving a sign for your preferred candidate or going door-to-door. You can do online work like promoting them on Reddit, but you must get at least 1000 upvotes.
I am in favor of voting and I am in favor of you asking people to go out and vote, but I am against you throwing people in jail if they don't do it.
and already represents a good sample of the population.
A good sample is not good enough when all our futures are on the line. we as citizens have agreed to follow laws and have our lives guided by the consensus of the people. a sample set is not a consensus, it's just going by those that are loudest. the American people are tired of their lives dictated by those that are loudest, because it's too easy of a system to game. We need EVERYBODY to have a voice, and for each voice to be completely equal, with no weight on any one demographic.
If you want more people to vote like you then...
who said anything about "vote like" me? this isn't about compelling people to vote the same as me. This is about making sure that every single persons voice is heard equally and completely, and about creating a system where the candidates have to honestly appeal to the majority of the people, and not just push wedge issues and keep their "base" happy.
Perhaps we should make campaigning for your favorite candidate mandatory
quite the opposite, if you want to discuss it, i'd rather have all campaigning restricted to the official campaigns of the candidates themselves, in order to prevent big money interests from tainting a campaign with independent marketing initiatives and super PACs. That's another enormous problem that needs to be ejected from our electoral process, money. all candidates should campaign on equal funding, with no money from outside sources.
I am in favor of voting and I am in favor of you asking people to go out and vote, but I am against you throwing people in jail if they don't do it.
then i'm afraid your offering no solution at all. we're talking about human nature here. Statistical analysis doesn't cut it. margins of error are not acceptable. in order for elections to be completely fair and true, every single person needs to vote. they won't do it unless you force them. It's the only way. i've got 200 years of proof to back it up.
You are assuming that the outcome of elections would be different if everyone were to vote. I am positing that they would not, at least not substantially.
this isn't about compelling people to vote the same as me.
If this isn't about voting like you then why are you so worked up about it? You seem to think that making everyone vote will result in something different happening, and seem to really want that to happen, which suggests that you are not happy with the current voting results. What if forcing everyone to vote resulted in more Republicans winning?
then i'm afraid your offering no solution at all.
I wasn't trying to offer any solutions because I didn't think there was a problem. Putting people in jail only to get the same outcome as before is definitely NOT a solution. You sound like those who are in favor of the drug war - only criminals use drugs and throwing them in jail will result in less drugs on the street and fewer overdoses and addictions. That didn't turn out so well.
Studies show that low voter turnout actually contributes to our political polarization.
Well sure. The radicals of all sides will always show up, so as voter turnout decreases, extreme viewpoints will become a larger and larger proportion of the remaining votes. If that becomes a trend rather than an anomaly, the political landscape will shift to disproportionately represent those extremes, eventually ending up where we are now.
Education is as important as the need to separate religion from politics imo. It's easy to point out how uneducated the "Base" may seem but that doesn't matter when they are voting for Jesus.
Thomas Jefferson, 1802: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Pres #45, 2017: “In America, we don't worship government, we worship God."
Exactly. Even if we have everyone in the nation turning out, there's no guarantee that those people actually know what they're voting for.
I think everyone should care about politics, because it literally governs their life, but if you ginuinely don't care, stay the hell away from my voting booth.
My ancestors fought in the American revolution and I think of them every time I submit a ballot. Regardless of how long you have been in America-how can a citizen not want to vote? I get emotional every vote. It's more thrilling to me than a kid at Christmas.
"The Ballot is stronger than the bullet." Abraham Lincoln
The argument against compulsory voting is that it limits freedom of speech by denying the voter the right to choose not to participate. This complaint is easily answered by providing a "no confidence" option on the ballot.
I get what you're trying to say, but "not being interested in politics" isn't a good enough excuse when election outcomes can fuck over the entire population.
A proper democracy needs the vast majority of the population to vote in order to work and make sense.
90% of the trouble in this country could be resolved with the following ballot reforms:
Vote by mail
Mandatory voting
Instant runoff voting (or literally any other system besides first-past-the-post)
And before anyone jumps in here with the free speech argument against mandatory voting, a "no confidence" option still gives voters the freedom to choose not to participate. The point is that everyone needs to make that choice affirmatively, rather than simply not showing up.
We aren't a democracy. The two party system is absolutely the biggest issue we have, because it's easy for it to turn into an accusation-laden smear campaign on both sides where people feel forced to either vote for the lesser evil or just refrain from voting altogether. This entire campaign in Alabama was an absolute disgrace on both sides.
I'm a religious conservative. I do not consider myself a republican and have not voted for a Republican at any level beyond city/county in nearly 20 years. I also do not live in Alabama.
However, I've heard absolutely nothing about Jones' campaign. No idea what he proposed as far as economics, policy, infrastructure, etc. He was elected by virtue of a smear campaign with "altered" evidence, involving the ever-reputable Gloria Allred.
Roy Moore is likely not a morally upstanding human being. I do not believe that accusations are enough to determine guilt. I do believe there should have been a third, sane option. I don't know that I could have brought myself to vote for Moore if I lived in Alabama but as someone with deeply held religious views, at gunpoint I would have voted for someone simply accused of being hebephile over someone who wholesale endorses infanticide.
It doesn't help that I have such an inherent distrust of both major political parties and the media that I don't believe anything any of them say. There's a part of me that believes this exact scenario would have played out had Strange defeated Moore in the primary. And will continue playing out in elections for the next year or two until the parties can find a more despicable way to campaign in lieu of substantive change.
However, I've heard absolutely nothing about Jones' campaign. No idea what he proposed as far as economics, policy, infrastructure, etc.
If you really care, Google is your friend. People said the same thing about Hillary, yet she published a book on her policies.
He was elected by virtue of a smear campaign with "altered" evidence, involving the ever-reputable Gloria Allred.
I'm gonna need you to elaborate on this. As far as I know, you don't get removed from conservative Alabama Supreme court twice because of a smear campaign. Even if you ignore all the predatory shit, you can see he's still a problematic candidate.
Roy Moore is likely not a morally upstanding human being. I do not believe that accusations are enough to determine guilt.
I agree, but sounds like there was a little more than just hearsay accusations.
I do believe there should have been a third, sane option. I don't know that I could have brought myself to vote for Moore if I lived in Alabama but as someone with deeply held religious views, at gunpoint I would have voted for someone simply accused of being hebephile over someone who wholesale endorses infanticide.
Alright, there it is, then. You may not identify as Republican, but it sounds like if there was someone less reprehensible on the R ticket, you maybe would have voted R. And btw, there was more than the hebephile things that were wrong with him, like the racism.
I'm not sure why you even mention not knowing about Doug Jones' policies, as if you would ever consider voting for him regardless of what his policies were. No matter how cleanly a Dem runs their campaign you'd never vote for them because part of the Dem platform is pro-choice
I never said he wasn't a problematic candidate, though his removal from the court was a result of failure to follow directions that compromised his publicly touted evangelical beliefs. I believe those were grandstanding actions with eyes on future political campaigns so that he could point to them for an evangelical base to drum up support.
Unless the "less reprehensible" Republican candidate was someone along the lines of Gary Johnson or Ron Paul running Republican rather than independent for the sake of ballot access and visibility, then no. I would not. I haven't voted Republican in my adult life.
The same question I posed to another comment applies here. I believe that abortion is state endorse genocide. Many democrats believe that it is a woman's right to terminate the life of her child. To this point, so does the SCOTUS. I don't know if it will ever be challenged at the highest levels, but I believe that Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are unconstitutional. That's another pointless debate for another time.
If I believe in my heart that abortion is murder and that the state endorsed practice of it amounts to genocide, should I vote for someone who supports it? Would a democrat vote for a known murderer, Ted Kennedy aside?
I disagree. The problem with our elections is $$, filthy lucre. You have to raise around $15 million to run for a Senate seat. The Citizens United case screwed America. SCOTUS fucked up big time.
The goptaxscam was written by lobbyists for lobbyists. It would allow kochsuckers to write off their dark money contributions and will only make things worse.
As long as our votes actually count, then we are still a democracy. The Republicans may be trying to take that from us, but they haven't succeeded yet.
"The Republicans," as if they're the ones that established a constitutional republic using a set of representatives rather than a straightforward, "majority rule" democracy. Jesus.
To follow their point, if we had rigorous elections where the whole populace voted, we would have better candidates on both sides. Thus resulting in a better candidate than Clinton, dubbed the lesser of two evils.
Also if we abolished first-past-the-post, it would give third-parties, particularly the Libertarian and Green parties a much better chance. But it'll be tough to get established Republican and Democrat senators and congressmen to vote on such, which is where local elections come in.
Don’t blame the system because your party let Clinton run the DNC and stopped anyone from challenging her.
Dems went all in on one candidate, knowing that she was very unlikeable, and got burned.
Electoral college is just a mix of Congress where there is representation based upon population and states rights. If you want to get rid of the EC, you must also want to abolish the Senate.
After all, how can Alaska and Wyoming have the same amount of Senators as California and New York?
There is no perfect system, but what we have has enabled the longest continuous peaceful transfer of power any country has ever seen. I’d say we are doing just fine.
We have a thing called primaries. Trump went through a really deep and big name GOP field and came out on top. Guess who let that happen? Actual citizens across the country that chose him.
Democrats didn’t have the same process. Their primaries were rigged to subvert democracy from day 1. DNC propped up an awful establishment candidate in a clear ‘change’ election year.
Now, I’ll agree that the two party system sucks because we are only left with two choices at the end. Problem is Repubs and Dems can only agree on keeping it that way and thus preserving their stranglehold on American politics. A lot of voters last Fall held their nose when they voted. Trump and Hilary had the two highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates ever. Sigh.
Wouldn’t it be great if Trump and Bernie ran as independents in 2020? Will never happen though.
I'll reply to you here instead of your first reply to me. I agree with what you're saying. Primary rigging is bad. So is first past the post, and a rigid 2 party system and voter disenfranchisement and all those things. But those things don't matter if voter participation is not high. Because at the end of the day, it will still end up that an enormous portion of the population does not vote and therefore any election result isn't even representative of the voice of the majority of the country.
I'm not American, and as much as I dislike Trump, my point stands for both sides. Yes it is a system that has been around for very long, and yes there have been huge strides compared to the time when women and non-whites were not allowed to vote. That doesn't mean that the system, or any system, rather, cannot improve.
I personally think we should have Election Day for president be a federal holiday and open voting for more than 1 day.
You are right, USA has never had the vast majority of citizens vote. We can do a better job to foster more people voting.
The problem is, Democrats and Republicans don’t want to change the status quo because no outside party can challenge right now.
And yeah...in the history of political polling in USA Trump had the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate. Problem was Clinton had the second highest.
389
u/Andures Dec 13 '17
Not just about Democrats or sides winning. A proper democracy needs the vast majority of the population to vote in order to work and make sense. If the vast majority of the population does vote Republican, then so be it. But when the elections are won by a voting bloc that comprised of only 30% of the country in a non-representative, 2 party system, then it only serves to weaken the concept of democracy, regardless of who the 30% voted for.