Americans for a multi-party democracy

[RetiredGySgt]

And it happened once, when the second Adams became President, he was chosen by Congress because no one won an outright majority. I believe he ran against Jackson? Anyway he won because as a former Representative he was more liked in Congress and even though he had less electoral votes then Jackson they chose him. 1820 or 1824 I believe. No idea who the third guy was, never researched.

 

[editec]

The relevant Amendment to the Constitution.

LII: Constitution

And the part that applies.



Cut to the chase, the President must win the actual majority of electoral votes available.

If we have 3 or more people that win lots of electoral votes that simply won't happen and Congress will choose amongst the top three who will be President and Vice President.

Ah...I see your point.

Yes, well that doesn't take a change in the Consitution since that is the law in effect now, yes?

Hence my confusion.

Thanks for clarifying your point, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah...I see your point.

Yes, well that doesn't take a change in the Consitution since that is the law in effect now, yes?

Hence my confusion.

Thanks for clarifying your point, though.

Not sure I understand your question. The Constitution STATES the Electoral College procedure, it is not a law that Congress can just change as they like. In order to win one person must get 0ne more than half all available Electoral votes. Unless they added some there are 535 Electoral votes, one person must receive 268 electoral votes. Failing that the election is over and the House of Representatives takes the top winners and choices who amongst them will be President and their running mate becomes Vice President.

There would be 50 votes in the House in this case as each State only gets one vote. Those States with split Representation would have to vote amongst themselves who the State will vote for. So basically the majority in that State will decide. Like NC has 13, 7 Republican and 6 Democrat, it would most likley vote Republican.

And again no third party would win in this case since there are few Independents much less third party Representatives.

Seems to me they did add some, just cant remember how, seems to me we now have 540 Electoral votes. Guess I can try and look it up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh ya 538, there are 438 Representatives not 435 like I was thinking. so one needs 270 Electoral votes to win the Presidency.

 

[TeachMe]

any Americans for a multi-party democracy here?
Anyone want more than two choices for the rest of their lives?

I see this a lot on message boards, but is there any (ANY) interest in this concept away from the intellectual loner elite?

 

[editec]

We are a de facto two-party nation.

Or, if you're really cynical, we are a de facto one party nation pretending to be two parties.

As long as the rules of Congress work the way they work, third parties are pretty much out of the running, folks.

Third party candidates can't bring home the bacon that major party pols can.

They can never get any power in Congress to set the agendas.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We are a de facto two-party nation.

Or, if you're really cynical, we are a de facto one party nation pretending to be two parties.

As long as the rules of Congress work the way they work, third parties are pretty much out of the running, folks.

Third party candidates can't bring home the bacon that major party pols can.

They can never get any power in Congress to set the agendas.

What Agenda? The Electoral College is in the Constitution it is not controlled at all by the Congress. As for matching funds there is a thresh hold for it, break the thresh hold and you get the money. If you were actually popular enough to break it you probably don't need it. if your not why should I pay for your stupid attempt to run for an office you never had a chance in hell of winning?

 

[Chris]

Our system is controled by corporate lobbyists, so that the politicians do what is in the best interest of the money.

I really fear for the future of America.

 

[dilloduck]

The biggest obstacle to a realistic multi-party system is the media. They could easily make it so if they stopped reporting as if there are only 2 candidates running. They relegate the other parties into virtual nothings by not even reporting on them.

 

[editec]

What Agenda? The Electoral College is in the Constitution it is not controlled at all by the Congress. As for matching funds there is a thresh hold for it, break the thresh hold and you get the money. If you were actually popular enough to break it you probably don't need it. if your not why should I pay for your stupid attempt to run for an office you never had a chance in hell of winning?

I continue to fail to see why you think this issue has anything to do with the Electoral college.

 

[Jon]

Our system is controled by corporate lobbyists, so that the politicians do what is in the best interest of the money.

I really fear for the future of America.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I continue to fail to see why you think this issue has anything to do with the Electoral college.

Congress does not control our Federal elections, the States do. There are no Federal laws about who can run, what is required to get on the ballot in each State nor what kind of system the States use.

The Electoral College, though, ensures that if we have 3 or 4 strong candidates that each pull similar Electoral college votes that Congress will pick the President . That is not by an act of Congress but dictated by the Constitution.

 

[editec]

The biggest obstacle to a realistic multi-party system is the media. They could easily make it so if they stopped reporting as if there are only 2 candidates running. They relegate the other parties into virtual nothings by not even reporting on them.

That is a great point.

But ask yourself if the same people who have so much control over our Congress aren't also the same people which own our media?


These poeople knew exactly what they were doing when they watered down our laws about ownership of the media, folks.

Thank your fellow Republicans (and the Dems who went along with it) for making this roadblock to a democratic Republic possible, BTW.

 

[Bern80]

Ultimately I would like no parties at all. I don't think multiple parties is a real good idea. Let's say we have three major parties instead of two. Now instead of two major voting groups where the most votes wins, you have three major voting groups. Do you really want the President to be chosen by a third of the voters (and even less of the general public)?

 

[bobbymcgill]

Aside of us fine folks here, most Americans could give a flip about making fundamental changes.

Hurray Billy Bob! Wraslin' is on TV!

 

[editec]

Aside of us fine folks here, most Americans could give a flip about making fundamental changes.

Hurray Billy Bob! Wraslin' is on TV!

Sadly true.

But the internet does give us Americans the opportunity to hash out issues and recognize that a hell of a lot more Americans are paying attention and thinking about these problems than our media would have us believe, I think.

You all do realize, don't you, that this tecnology really does give us the means to create a much more democratic system than the representaational form of government we have now, right?

Not that I expect this tecnology will even be used as such, but technically at least we could have a much more democratic form of government if we could find the will to implement one.

 

[Caveguy]

I think Liberals should have their own party. This way the Democrats can have their own guy, the Liberals have theirs, and Republicans can finally straighten out America.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sadly true.

But the internet does give us Americans the opportunity to hash out issues and recognize that a hell of a lot more Americans are paying attention and thinking about these problems than our media would have us believe, I think.

You all do realize, don't you, that this tecnology really does give us the means to create a much more democratic system than the representaational form of government we have now, right?

Not that I expect this tecnology will even be used as such, but technically at least we could have a much more democratic form of government if we could find the will to implement one.

You are aware a TRUE democracy with one vote per person on EVERY issue, bill or utterance from Government only works in small groups or where those with the vote are strictly controlled and kept a small group?

 

[DiveCon]

I think Liberals should have their own party. This way the Democrats can have their own guy, the Liberals have theirs, and Republicans can finally straighten out America.

um, who's gonna straighten out the republicans?

 

[DiveCon]

the solution to the 2 party lock is LOCAL election reforms
make it require 50% +1 to win ANY election
no need to touch the electoral college at all
other than require that state allot the EC votes by congressional district and not have them go lump sum to the winner of the state (like both Maine and Nebraska do)
and this again, is a LOCAL issue, not federal