Since we vote for candidates named on the ballot, let's junk the Electoral College, false advertising incarnate.
Not a good idea. With a voting population our size, what margin percentage would we need to certify before declaring a winner or a recount? Would we need a majority winner (i.e., more than 50% of all those cast?) At least with the Electoral College we know how many votes will decide the election.
A better way would be to keep the EC but to introduce vote-by-district the way Maine and Nebraska do, instead of winner-take-all. If Florida had the former in 2000 then any recount would have split 14-11 for Bush, rather than 25-0. Given that Bush won the election, 271-266, history would have taken a very different course but for a slight change in Electoral College voting rules.
A better way would be to keep the EC but to introduce vote-by-district the way Maine and Nebraska do, instead of winner-take-all. If Florida had the former in 2000 then any recount would have split 14-11 for Bush, rather than 25-0. Given that Bush won the election, 271-266, history would have taken a very different course but for a slight change in Electoral College voting rules.
Ross Perot was a crackpot. It was amusing to watch him play without a helmet even if was only fantasy football. What we need is a gong to expedite the exits of the losers who really can't sing like Frank Sinatra.
We will soon set an intergalactic record for candidates. With any luck unemployment will drop to three percent.
We will soon set an intergalactic record for candidates. With any luck unemployment will drop to three percent.
So we have an analysis critiquing "magic"? How probitive.
If a debate can't improve the chances for a third party candidate then why does the duopoly consistently keep them away?
If a debate can't improve the chances for a third party candidate then why does the duopoly consistently keep them away?
1
Yes, the game is rigged. We must do something that can break the two party "stranglehold." Us citizens need to hear ALL of the ideas, not just the same old formulaic lies we usually get. Start the debates this summer, and include some "outside" candidates.
3
The argument from Level the Playing Field is about one aspect of the problem. Turning it into a "chicken or egg" argument does more to defend the status quo than it does to actually undermine the proposal. It's a status quo that few other nation's with functioning democracies would tolerate.
What's the downside of including more voices for voters? None.
What's the downside for the 2 dominant parties? They have to deal with new ideas from outside their safe zone and the prospect there might be another alternative after the other guy has failed voters, too. Some like to argue this preserves the "vital center" but there's little evidence that centrism helps us or that it even exists anymore.
American politics has gone stale. Yeast is a vital part of making bread, but only a tiny amount of the ingredients. Leave it out and nothing rises. Pretty good analogy for US politics circa 2015. We end up with the least worst choice, at best, and often not even that.
Any observant student of 3rd party politics in the US can point out many, many cases where 3rd parties brought new ideas to the table. In almost every case, they failed initially, but then the idea found its way into the mainstream to our benefit, because voters pushed and one or both D or R decided they needed it. Keeping 3rd parties out of the political process is a way to preserve the power of party elites. It has nothing to do with good democracy or the wishes of the voters, who want more, not fewer, choices.
What's the downside of including more voices for voters? None.
What's the downside for the 2 dominant parties? They have to deal with new ideas from outside their safe zone and the prospect there might be another alternative after the other guy has failed voters, too. Some like to argue this preserves the "vital center" but there's little evidence that centrism helps us or that it even exists anymore.
American politics has gone stale. Yeast is a vital part of making bread, but only a tiny amount of the ingredients. Leave it out and nothing rises. Pretty good analogy for US politics circa 2015. We end up with the least worst choice, at best, and often not even that.
Any observant student of 3rd party politics in the US can point out many, many cases where 3rd parties brought new ideas to the table. In almost every case, they failed initially, but then the idea found its way into the mainstream to our benefit, because voters pushed and one or both D or R decided they needed it. Keeping 3rd parties out of the political process is a way to preserve the power of party elites. It has nothing to do with good democracy or the wishes of the voters, who want more, not fewer, choices.
5
Agreed: There's no single, magic antidote for cracking the duopolistic malady strangling the American political system. Leveling the playing field to include more voices in the presidential debates certainly can be one prescription of the treatment cocktail. There are myriad others: reforming primary elections to guarantee equal voice for independents in picking candidates; redistricting reform for competitive congressional districts that stop rewarding the harshest extremists in primaries are but two more remedies. As long as we (including most in media) continue to think of elections as "belonging" to self-serving parties instead of voters we perpetuate the false right v left, red v blue "choice" for president (and most every other office). Cracking the system at the congressional and senate levels by electing third party and independent candidates will make it safely "normal" for voters to consider independent alternatives for president. Across the country, reform organizations are springing up to force open primaries, elect independent senators, demand nonpartisan redistricting commissions, and open debates to more voices. It will become increasingly difficult for the parties to ignore how broadly voters are abandoning party membership. As the parties continue to demonstrate just how out of touch and unresponsive to the will of the American people they have become, the greater the opportunity for independents to get elected -- even to the presidency. http://www.ivn.us
6
It's silly to think debate access alone would make a third party viable, especially for the US presidential race. The winner-take-all system means that a strong third party candidate tends to sabotage whichever of the big parties (Democrat or Republican) the third party is politically closer to (see Nader 2000). One need only study US history to see that even as the parties themselves have changed (Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Democrats, Whigs, Republicans, Bull Moose, Dixiecrats, etc.), within a few elections we always go back to a two party system with the only possible change being that sometimes one of the old parties is replaced.
The only realistic way to change that would be a system like instant runoff voting/ranked choice voting, or something like it. That may or may not be a decent system. On the one hand, it could break the two party dominance and bring fresh ideas or centrist compromises. On the other hand, it could give greater influence to extremist groups that are worse than both parties.
The rise of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party should humble those who assume that outsiders are preferable, as a rule, to the establishment. In any case, instant runoff voting or a similar system would require a Constitutional amendment to implement for presidential elections and is extremely unlikely to happen in the near future. It's hard to imagine 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States agreeing on anything substantive in this era of political polarization.
The only realistic way to change that would be a system like instant runoff voting/ranked choice voting, or something like it. That may or may not be a decent system. On the one hand, it could break the two party dominance and bring fresh ideas or centrist compromises. On the other hand, it could give greater influence to extremist groups that are worse than both parties.
The rise of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party should humble those who assume that outsiders are preferable, as a rule, to the establishment. In any case, instant runoff voting or a similar system would require a Constitutional amendment to implement for presidential elections and is extremely unlikely to happen in the near future. It's hard to imagine 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States agreeing on anything substantive in this era of political polarization.
2
The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
1
I support that bill, but getting enough additional state legislatures is not as easy as it sounds. Contrary to what you say, it's been limited entirely to blue states so far (all 11 states signed on so far gave their electoral votes to Obama in 2012). Despite a few Republicans endorsing it, it's still mostly a liberal project. In every Republican state to consider it so far, it has been defeated or died in committee. In any case, even a popular vote system would not be enough to empower third parties.
2
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Some supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), former Senators David Durenberger (R–MN), and Jake Garn (R–UT), Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the MI Republican Party, NE GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson, and Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of NY.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
Some supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), former Senators David Durenberger (R–MN), and Jake Garn (R–UT), Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the MI Republican Party, NE GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson, and Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of NY.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
Under the National Popular Vote bill, the candidate winning the national popular vote would secure a majority of the Electoral College.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states, and win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states, and win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
2