Alternative Voting System

[Wildman]

Compromises have to be made to form a working government.

ooh, really, when the demorats were in power, i.e., Harry "Whorehouse" Reid never compromised, that is why there was no "working government".

 

[AdvancingTime]

With the Presidential primary debates in our focus the air waves are chock-full of stories about the individual candidates and their prospects. Speculation, spin, and unlimited efforts by the media to influence the decision as to who will become America's next leader is in full force.

Please note, to say America has a flawed election process is an understatement. Our election process often results in not putting the best qualified choice in a position to move on and the decision is placed in the hands of a few voters in early primaries that cast their ballots months before polls are even opened in a majority of states.

Sadly, the people who will most likely have the least say are voters like you and me. Bottom-line, with our current system we will again find the election teetering on a few hundred votes in states such as Ohio or Florida. The article below explores America's flawed election process.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/09/political-debates-highlight-flawed.html

 

[Iceweasel]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

 

[CowboyTed]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

That's lovely... Don't address any of the problems and the girdlock. Just keep supporting the status quo.

Do you support the 2014 midterms turnout at 36.4%?
Are you supporter of null contests because the incumbent is unbeatable and thus goes unchallenged?
You have congress at below 20% approval yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.

Do you consider these the traits of a fully functioning democracy?

But hey you are good at insulting someone.

Yes Europe has many parties because people have different views. You as for a Market place with many competitors but are happy with just options when going to the polls. Why are you scared of alternative voices from both the left and right offering new ways to tackle problems.

People continually complain about a Washington Oligarchy and you seem to want to support them through your actions...

 

[BULLDOG]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Compromises have to be made to form a working government. That's why it wouldn't work here. The right doesn't want a working government.

And this the beauty, the far right has power over Moderate GOP in caucusing them. Generally sitting parties run more candidates than they think they get, policy of running you run 3 to get 2. So it is rare for the party not to nominate a sitting member.

But when the guy is asked to govern he doesn't have to worry about the extreme element of the party. And when he goes to election he wants to win Moderate Democrats as well, there is votes for being the least disliked GOP by the Democrats and visa versa. Middle of the road is good, it is called being on the pulse. So being reasonable and considered an honest broker is preferred...

It was nice when the right was honorable and things worked like that. Sadly, it hasn't been that way for a while. Just look a the crazies in the house. Nothing reasonable or considered about the right there.

 

[longknife]

So, why don't you move to Ireland?

I live in Ireland and have business interests in US as well...

I am not telling anyone what to do , I just points out that one man one vote is a cause of a lot of US political problems. You have congress having an approval rating below 20% and yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014.

That does not seem healthy

So what percentage of your votes in Ireland are dictated by the Brits? We know you aren't a real country because you can't even vote for yourselves to be one. You're a colony and colonies can afford to play stupid self gratifying games as long as mommy is there to take care of the big stuff.

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Shows the adequacy of our educational system when some does not know the simplest of facts that there are TWO IRELANDS.

 

[longknife]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

That's lovely... Don't address any of the problems and the girdlock. Just keep supporting the status quo.

Do you support the 2014 midterms turnout at 36.4%?
Are you supporter of null contests because the incumbent is unbeatable and thus goes unchallenged?
You have congress at below 20% approval yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.

Do you consider these the traits of a fully functioning democracy?

But hey you are good at insulting someone.

Yes Europe has many parties because people have different views. You as for a Market place with many competitors but are happy with just options when going to the polls. Why are you scared of alternative voices from both the left and right offering new ways to tackle problems.

People continually complain about a Washington Oligarchy and you seem to want to support them through your actions...

I certainly dislike that even in our general election, less than half of eligible voters bother to register and less than half of them even bother to vote.

But, it's PART OF A FREE SOCIETY.

If the sheep are happy with their lot they will keep their heads lowered as the chew the grass. (No pun intended)

 

[CowboyTed]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

That's lovely... Don't address any of the problems and the girdlock. Just keep supporting the status quo.

Do you support the 2014 midterms turnout at 36.4%?
Are you supporter of null contests because the incumbent is unbeatable and thus goes unchallenged?
You have congress at below 20% approval yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.

Do you consider these the traits of a fully functioning democracy?

But hey you are good at insulting someone.

Yes Europe has many parties because people have different views. You as for a Market place with many competitors but are happy with just options when going to the polls. Why are you scared of alternative voices from both the left and right offering new ways to tackle problems.

People continually complain about a Washington Oligarchy and you seem to want to support them through your actions...

I certainly dislike that even in our general election, less than half of eligible voters bother to register and less than half of them even bother to vote.

But, it's PART OF A FREE SOCIETY.

If the sheep are happy with their lot they will keep their heads lowered as the chew the grass. (No pun intended)

It is free to vote or not... But if you live in rotten districts which will be won by a certain party if he never canvassed, The two ways proposed here could make it far more representational and thus more involving to voters..

Lets take for example Kansas...
At the moment it has 4 GOP congressmen representing. Obama polled at 38%. Under PR STV GOP would call this a safe two and very probable three. They would run 4 or 5.
Democrats would run 2 candidates with place for one and probably an unlikely 2.

This former no brainer state has a reason to vote now. GOP for a third or clean sweep and Dems to take one and go for two.

 

[Iceweasel]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

That's lovely... Don't address any of the problems and the girdlock. Just keep supporting the status quo.

Do you support the 2014 midterms turnout at 36.4%?
Are you supporter of null contests because the incumbent is unbeatable and thus goes unchallenged?
You have congress at below 20% approval yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.

Do you consider these the traits of a fully functioning democracy?

But hey you are good at insulting someone.

Yes Europe has many parties because people have different views. You as for a Market place with many competitors but are happy with just options when going to the polls. Why are you scared of alternative voices from both the left and right offering new ways to tackle problems.

People continually complain about a Washington Oligarchy and you seem to want to support them through your actions...

I certainly dislike that even in our general election, less than half of eligible voters bother to register and less than half of them even bother to vote.

But, it's PART OF A FREE SOCIETY.

If the sheep are happy with their lot they will keep their heads lowered as the chew the grass. (No pun intended)

It is free to vote or not... But if you live in rotten districts which will be won by a certain party if he never canvassed, The two ways proposed here could make it far more representational and thus more involving to voters..

Lets take for example Kansas...
At the moment it has 4 GOP congressmen representing. Obama polled at 38%. Under PR STV GOP would call this a safe two and very probable three. They would run 4 or 5.
Democrats would run 2 candidates with place for one and probably an unlikely 2.

This former no brainer state has a reason to vote now. GOP for a third or clean sweep and Dems to take one and go for two.

Why don't you run for president and dazzle us all with your brilliance?

 

[BULLDOG]

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Honestly, who gives a fuck what you or some foreigner thinks? Many (all?) multi-party systems are a clusterfuck like herding a bunch of cats. There's no frustration in Europe?

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

That's lovely... Don't address any of the problems and the girdlock. Just keep supporting the status quo.

Do you support the 2014 midterms turnout at 36.4%?
Are you supporter of null contests because the incumbent is unbeatable and thus goes unchallenged?
You have congress at below 20% approval yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.

Do you consider these the traits of a fully functioning democracy?

But hey you are good at insulting someone.

Yes Europe has many parties because people have different views. You as for a Market place with many competitors but are happy with just options when going to the polls. Why are you scared of alternative voices from both the left and right offering new ways to tackle problems.

People continually complain about a Washington Oligarchy and you seem to want to support them through your actions...

I certainly dislike that even in our general election, less than half of eligible voters bother to register and less than half of them even bother to vote.

But, it's PART OF A FREE SOCIETY.

If the sheep are happy with their lot they will keep their heads lowered as the chew the grass. (No pun intended)

It is free to vote or not... But if you live in rotten districts which will be won by a certain party if he never canvassed, The two ways proposed here could make it far more representational and thus more involving to voters..

Lets take for example Kansas...
At the moment it has 4 GOP congressmen representing. Obama polled at 38%. Under PR STV GOP would call this a safe two and very probable three. They would run 4 or 5.
Democrats would run 2 candidates with place for one and probably an unlikely 2.

This former no brainer state has a reason to vote now. GOP for a third or clean sweep and Dems to take one and go for two.

Why don't you run for president and dazzle us all with your brilliance?

He would have a better chance than the right wing clowns. Especially that T-rump fool.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So, why don't you move to Ireland?

I live in Ireland and have business interests in US as well...

I am not telling anyone what to do , I just points out that one man one vote is a cause of a lot of US political problems. You have congress having an approval rating below 20% and yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014.

That does not seem healthy

So what percentage of your votes in Ireland are dictated by the Brits? We know you aren't a real country because you can't even vote for yourselves to be one. You're a colony and colonies can afford to play stupid self gratifying games as long as mommy is there to take care of the big stuff.

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

No you aren't. Bitch please. You're a Brit puppet. All of you north, west, south, scott's. All the same. You aren't a country you're a Brit colony. And you have been for far longer than the US has existed. Thee Brit's own your ass and you don't have the balls to stop it.

 

[CowboyTed]

So, why don't you move to Ireland?

I live in Ireland and have business interests in US as well...

I am not telling anyone what to do , I just points out that one man one vote is a cause of a lot of US political problems. You have congress having an approval rating below 20% and yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014.

That does not seem healthy

So what percentage of your votes in Ireland are dictated by the Brits? We know you aren't a real country because you can't even vote for yourselves to be one. You're a colony and colonies can afford to play stupid self gratifying games as long as mommy is there to take care of the big stuff.

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

No you aren't. Bitch please. You're a Brit puppet. All of you north, west, south, scott's. All the same. You aren't a country you're a Brit colony. And you have been for far longer than the US has existed. Thee Brit's own your ass and you don't have the balls to stop it.

I suggest you learn a bit of Geography, find a map or something.

 

[cnm]

My one issue is that it can still encourage gerrymandering a little as only one can elected from one area

We have an independent Electoral Commission which draws up seats. That sort of thing is too important to be left to party machinery. What a joke that would be. Oops...sorry.

The major benefits of the system, imo, are transparency, accountability and representation. Everyone can see what deals have been made to form a government; a government breaking election promises is easily punished at the next election by third party votes; and representation of different sectors of the population is vastly improved.

 

[cnm]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

Compromises have to be made to form a working government. That's why it wouldn't work here. The right doesn't want a working government.

Compromise in the US doesn't happen because they don't have to. The two parties are two powerful.

The system sets the whole attitude up. Change the system and the attitude would have to change.

In the UK compromise isn't needed at all, if you get a majority of MPs you can do what you like for five years. Yet the Tories and Lib Dems compromised, okay, the Lib Dems got slaughtered, but it happened.

In Germany the SPD and CDU have worked together in a Grand Coalition perfectly well, just as the SPD have worked well with the Greens and the CDU with the FPD.

A change in system would lead to a change in the way things are done. Big money wouldn't be able to just pick one side and then control so much, their power would be reduced somewhat.

 

[candycorn]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

We desperately need to re-do how we do the primaries. Most voters do not get to cast a ballot for whom they think are the best candidates because of poor showings in 2 or 3 rather small states. Parties are 100% in control of how they run primaries and I keep waiting for one of the two major parties to blink and change this silly assed system they have now to where the candidates have to run this illogical gauntlet of a couple of states, then a lot of states then a few states then a lot of states...with some states holding primaries and some states holding caucuses and some states having two different election days as the Dems did in Texas in 2008.

I'd like to see the primary changed to 4-6 regional contests.

For example....

January 14: ME, NH, MA, VT, CT, RI, NY, NJ, NY, PA, DE
February 18: OH, MI, IN, IL, MN, KY, WV, VA, WI, MO, IA
March 17: CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, HI, AK, AZ, NV, UT
April 7: NM, TX, CO, OK, KS, NE, WY, SD, ND, AR
April 28: FL, GA, LA, AL, MS, GA, SC, NC, TN,

I would award half of the delegates to the winner of each state then do the others on a % basis to force the candidates to campaign nationwide. For example, if Cruz were to win Texas and there are 200 delegates. He would get 100. Then lets say he got 44%, Trump got 43%, and Carson got 13%. Cruz would get 72 (100+44), Trump would get 43 and Carson would get 13. This really forces you to campaign nationwide. Like in 2008, Clinton won Texas but Obama won Idaho during the same week. Obama's margin was so great that he netted almost as many delegates as Clinton did even though she was winning a much bigger state. The example above is a bit of a mis-nomer since most states have 10 or 15 delegates at most and coming in 2nd would put you a few delegates behind the winner; not 101 as in the example.

Anyway, this would allow candidates to better focus their presence in one sector of the nation at a time, saving jet fuel costs, travel time, and allowing them to canvas areas more easily. Or, conversely, it would allow candidates to focus on their strong areas more than having to "pay homage" to IA and NH for 6 months. The old saying that there are "3 tickets out of Iowa" would become a thing of the past and more citizens would have a hand in deciding who moved on to the later contests than just two states.

From what I understood about your input, it seems that there is a lot of coalition building chich is fine in a vacuum but I don't think in practice it works too well.

 

[Iceweasel]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

 

[FA_Q2]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I've brought it up on here quite a few times, and it strikes me that people don't want it because they haven't been told to want it. I've had people dismiss PR because they don't know what it is, it's an acronym they don't understand, and are unwilling to look into what it actually is.

People seem to like their team game party fight. If you took that away from them, then what would they do?

I can tell you that I do not like the idea that parties pick the candidates at all. I could not support a system like the one in the OP. I do, however, like the idea of a multiple vote system when your obviously losing 3rd party candidate still gets your vote because when he loses your vote goes to the next one on your list. That makes sense to me and solves the serious problem that third party candidates face with many voters refusing to vote for them based on their vote 'not counting.'

No, the German system has both, PR and FPTP, and you vote for the party and the candidate, it works well. The reality is no matter you have party lists or not, politicians will get elected somehow anyway. In many places people go to the easiest seats.

AV was rejected in the UK, it's better than FPTP, but still would lead to a two party system in the US.