Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: How to Break the Two-Party System… with One Law
Source:
PO.com
URL Source: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07 ... two-party-system-with-one-law/
Published: Jul 21, 2012
Author: Michael Minkoff
Post Date: 2012-07-21 21:17:11 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 13136
Comments: 32
posted on July 20, 2012 by Michael Minkoff How to Break the Two-Party System… with One Law Washington warned in his Farewell Address that, among many other things that could destroy America, bipartisan politics was among the foremost. He foresaw that the two-party system would create career politicians who cared more about their party’s goals than their duty to uphold their oaths of office, and he believed such a system would shift the balance of power away from the people to the self-interested deal-brokers of party committees. Well, he was right. What’s the big problem with the two-party system? Well, there’s an old saying that to escape a bear, you don’t need to run faster than the bear… you just have to run faster than whoever’s with you. And politicians know this better than most. You don’t have to uphold the Constitution to win an election, and you don’t have to adequately represent your constituency either. You just have to be more Constitutional and more conscientious than the guy you’re running against. And right about now, that’s a pretty low bar. Pretty much everyone in the conservative camp is crying out “Anyone But Obama,” and that means the RNC really doesn’t have to offer a presidential candidate of any significant distinction to escape the bear. So how do we fix it? Most people believe voting third party is throwing away your vote, and they’re pretty much right. Aside from the fact that you might be able to rest easy at night knowing you “voted on principle,” a third-party candidate probably won’t ever win in the current political environment. Whether it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy or a case of media manipulation is irrelevant. I think the real answer is deceptively simple… if it could be implemented, which would be quite a legislative chore. It would involve changing the law on how we vote for candidates, but it would not fundamentally alter the voting process for those that are happy with the illusion of choice provided by the existing system. It’s a nascent idea at this point, and so I’m happy to entertain any possible complications or glitches the reader might foresee. Here’s how it would work: 1.Rather than voting for only one candidate, every voter would have to vote “yes” or “no” on every available candidate on the ballot, with the option of writing in a yes for a candidate that doesn’t show up on the ballot. If a voter thought every candidate met his criteria for the office, he could vote “yes” on all of them. If he thought none of them were sufficient to the task, he could vote “no” on all of them. Every “no” would cancel out a “yes,” and the candidate with the most net affirmations in the end would win. 2.If any candidate received a net vote of “no” (the negatives outnumbered the affirmatives), he would be disqualified from the race. 3.If no available candidate achieved a net positive affirmation from the voters, all the candidates would be scrapped for that election cycle and the available parties would have to provide new candidates (who would already have been selected as alternates) until at least one of them achieved a net positive. 4.If less than thirty percent of voters voted yes or no on a particular candidate, that candidate would also be disqualified (so no, you couldn’t vote a person in on one yes vote if all the other candidates ended up getting disqualified in a war of attrition). It would be difficult to implement this nationally, but it is not a terribly complicated system. If you wanted to vote for your two-party candidate, you could. This wouldn’t change anything for you. The beauty of the system, though, is that it would change things for voters that are not satisfied with either of the candidates the two parties provide. This allows the effectively disenfranchised to vote on an office even if no one they like is running for it. You could presumably vote “no” on every candidate. You could be entirely and completely fed up with the system, and yet still have a voice. It would also mean that voters would not need to vote for one candidate as a way of voting against a less desirable candidate. We could keep voting no until we got people that accurately and actually represented us. In other words, we could eat all the slackers, not just the slowest one. I believe that, as trivial as this voting law may seem, it would actually break the two-party system. We might even be able to get some politician to sponsor it, if only we could convince him it was harmless.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
(Edited)
I think there might be a problem with someone's no vote cancelling someone else's yes vote, but perhaps not. I'd love to see a law that held politicians criminally liable for there misuse or negligent use or even ineffective use of taxpayer money. Do a shitty job and waste 5 million bucks, go to jail. I'd also like them to have to document how each vote they cast is representitive of their constituency. Show how they determined each vote truly represented what their people wanted. Cast a non-representative vote, go to jail. Misuse of power.
. 1.Rather than voting for only one candidate, every voter would have to vote “yes” or “no” on every available candidate on the ballot, with the option of writing in a yes for a candidate that doesn’t show up on the ballot. If a voter thought every candidate met his criteria for the office, he could vote “yes” on all of them. If he thought none of them were sufficient to the task, he could vote “no” on all of them. Every “no” would cancel out a “yes,” and the candidate with the most net affirmations in the end would win. This sounds similar to an idea you had way back when.
How about this. We all group up in our respective factions. Then we have a free for all.
Maybe they could all wear little collars. We could watch them on Cspan and when enough people turned the dial they would be electrocuted. They would receive mild shocks when their disapproval started going up to a certain point. Everyone would be required to participate, except illegal aliens and sex perverts such as pedophiles and fags.
I like the idea of lots of NO's! Smite the evil ones. Ballot access would have to be made easier for more political parties and independents. The PTB are going to hate it. They've got a golden goose with the two-in-one party fraud.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
I think we need to adopt a "none of the above" option,and set it up so that if none of the candidates nominated get enough yes votes to win,a new election is held,but this time the parties with the losing "none of the above" candidates have to pay ALL the expenses out of party coffers.NO matching funds,NO money at all from the US Treasury. They also have to run new candidates because the previous ones have just disqualified themselves. I'm thinking this would only happen once,and we would immediately start getting better candidates.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
You don't like my shock collar idea? Whatever ;(
But what about all of the money spent at the local level to put on the elections??
Choosing and voting for a presidential candidate is like picking which STD you want to suffer from….
One of the reasons we don't have better political candidates is that the government system is so fucked upped, it can't fixed or changed for the better. We get the worst possible candidates because they don't know any better which means they will continue to erode the system and perhaps even at a greater rate as it is today.
Not as much as I like public hangings,but it's a good first step.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
No problem. That is local people paying out their own money,not politicians dishing out taxpayer money against their will.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
IMHO,the biggest reason is the collective "we" keep voting for any and all corrupt clowns the parties keep pushing forward,just like Pavlov's Dog slobbering at the bell. A famous and wise philosopher named Pogo once stated,"We has met the enemy,and he is us!" As long as we keep voting for the usual suspects,the usual suspects is all we will get a chance to vote for.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
I guess it depends on your point of view. They may be considered "the worst possible candidates" by thinking people like you and I but they are the best possible candidate for the Republicrat/Democan political machine, those who vote for (and therefore support) the machine, and those who own and control the machine. These candidates are corrupt, have no values and will do anything demanded of them. It doesn't matter a whit what the voter thinks about a candidate because, as the morons on this site and others prove on a daily basis, the average voter will vote for whomever is put before them no matter how bad the candidate might be and no matter if their whole career has been a rejection of the voter's supposed values. So the average voter votes for "their guy" so the "other guy" doesn't win. And the beat goes on and the big government, totalitarian agenda of the two party fraud continues unabated. But hey, at least "the other guy" didn't win! And really, isn't that all that matters?!? The smell of Republican boot leather across the back of the neck smells so much better than the smell of Democrat boot leather.
There is a better approach, called instant run off voting, which is already implemented in some localities in the U.S. 1.) IRV uses ranked ballots to simulate a traditional runoff in a single round of voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. They may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, with lower rankings never counting against higher rankings.
ping #14
What I would love to see happen is some enterprising prosecutor bring criminal conspiracy charges under the RICO Act against the Republican and Democrat parties. Of course since the two party fraud is the one who places the judges in office, this will never happen.
Especially since the average prosecutor is the most political critter roaming the planet. They ALL see themselves as future judges,senators,and presidents. Probably the least-likely people to rock that boat that live.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
There is a real structural issue here -- single member, winner take all congressional, legislative, and senatorial districts. If we had three strong parties, we would have constant minority government with people squeaking into office with 35% to 40% of the vote. Most European countries are different. They either have multi-member districts or a system of proportional representation, where you vote for the party rather than individual members. The way to fix our system so that third parties have a chance, but also to guarantee majority rule, is Instant Runnoff voting. The idea has been around a long time, but of course the established parties are not interested in implementing it.
Look at what happened in 1992. Clinton squeaked into office with 43% of the vote. The reason is that the center-right vote split between Bush and Perot. The percentage of the vote Bush + Perot received in 92 was about the same that Reagan got in 1984. Yes, it was Bush's fault, but did we deserve Clinton??? 57% of voters said no, but we got him anyway.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. Unfortunately, as with the criminal conspiracy charges, it will never happen. The corrupt political machine that is the Republcrat/Democan parties is only interested in securing its stranglehold on power, not making it easier for the voters to replace machine members.
Yep.
Hilarious! Best suggestion yet, Stone.
Funny how that worked out, eh? As long as we keep voting for the usual suspects,the usual suspects is all we will get a chance to vote for. THE PROBLEM: They don't call 'em "Party Machines" for nuthin'. That kind of visibility, cash, and influence buys all the spin and bullsh*t needed to beat even George Washington himself in an election.
And the answer,the ONLY answer is to ignore the big boys for the time being because nothing you say or do will matter to them anyhow,and focus on local and state candidates. People who know that you will be watching them and can be expected to get in their faces up close any time they screw up. Work for and contribute to these people,and when you send them off to sit in their elected seats make damn sure they understand that they don't own you or your vote,and that you will be backing and supporting an opponent of theirs next election cycle if they screw up. Also make sure they understand that THEY need to push this same philosophy uphill to their peers in DC. Have them make sure the DC politicians understand the new rules,that the VOTERS are their bosses,and that if the ones in DC don't toe the line the local politicians won't be holding fund raiser dinners for them,but will maybe even be running as their opponent next cycle. We HAVE to build from the bottom because it is impossible to build from the top.
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
Close but no cigar. The root issue is far more problematic: the two main political parties have IN FACT written themselves into law. This keeps all other political parties small. But the REAL question is too simple for most people to realize and has never been asked as far as I know: what purpose has either the two political parties dominating US governance done? To answer the question, you have to review the quality of life you enjoy. This requires reflection and analysis: MORE and MORE US governance has happened to Americans AND more and more wars around the world all based on the two party system. America is totally fucked upped with these two groups of thugs which laff all the way to the bank.
No can do on ignoring the Big Boys. The Big Boys make the Big Decisions. 0buma is like this Holmes punk in a giant theater. Only he's got a lotta help. Can't allow this massacre to continue. Have them [local pols] make sure the DC politicians understand the new rules,that the VOTERS are their bosses,and that if the ones in DC don't toe the line the local politicians won't be holding fund raiser dinners for them,but will maybe even be running as their opponent next cycle. If only we had the time to wait; We don't. You know it. We HAVE to build from the bottom because it is impossible to build from the top. And this building from the bottom only remains relevant as long as 0buma's mercurial rate of cratering of the entire system stops. Yes, that means Romney as a necessary lesser, slower evil buys us time to patch up the country a bit.
This is true. "My good friend on the other side of the aisle" is no fairy tale. We almost had a viable Third Party until Perot was squashed like a bug by the PTB in 1992. The destruction is totally bi-artisan though; 100% of Dem Party is working to destroy America 100%. This includes 76 members of the Congressional RATS belonging to the Progressive (Commie) Caucus. The GOP - with perhaps half its members corrupt, means IT is only destroying the Republic at a 50% rate. The REAL question is too simple for most people to realize and has never been asked as far as I know: what purpose has either the two political parties dominating US governance done? They keep us safe while we watch tee-bee and drink beer. /s The REAL Answer: They do what Parasites and Vampires do - Suck the life out of its host.
It's not my idea. It's called "Approval Voting" and I learned of it from elsewhere. See approvalvoting.org for more info. What's described is pretty much basic Approval Voting but with the enhancements of having a non-vote mean something different from neither approved nor disapproved. It's a fantastic idea, as the simple "vote for one" system we have now creates the wasted vote syndrome that we have now, which makes the R & D parties just revolve around one another with no feasible entry by 3rd parties. While the enhancements are interesting, as a practical measure I would suggest doing away with them and just going with the basic AV method of just counting the number of "Yes" votes for each candidate and awarding the seat to whomever got the most. This is the simplest method that can most easily be adopted by the voting systems currently in use AND can be most easily understood by the masses (The vote system has to be extremely simple for that reason).
To be, or not to be. That is the question.
The IRV system is not better than the AV system, in my opinion. It suffers from 3 things. #1) In a race with many candidates, it's possible the order in which lowest ranking candidates are eliminated can alter the final result. Naturally, the order in which the lowest ranking candidates are eliminated can be determined by a very tiny fraction of the total number of voters, so it is more subject to manipulation. (Some web sites delve into this possibility/flaw with IRV voting). #2) The IRV system is complicated making things much harder for the masses. Imagining having to rank 9 different candidates. People wouldn't even remember the order they should put them once they are in the booth, so rather than reflecting the will of the voter, results would arguably be somewhat random after the 3rd or 4th ranked candidate. #3) the current voting system & ballots (including paper ballots, which is the only way should be done) would have to be substantially modified to support IRV, whereas with AV, they would not. It's been proven mathematically, I think, that there is no voting system that can be guaranteed to reflect the will of the majority and be free from manipulation, so a compromise has to be accepted with any method. But all in all, I think AV is superior to IRV because of its simplicity. IRV is really a mutation of the current voting system as it's based on the idea that only one candidate can receive a voter's vote. AV gets away from that primitive idea and is the result of thinking "outside the box". While I think AV is superior to IRV, I would take IRV over the current system any time.
To be, or not to be. That is the question.
Thanks for shedding some more light on the idea. You have made some very good points in both of your posts on this subject. Very interesting concepts.
You don't have to rank all of the candidates. You can just rank one if you'd like. When is the last time you've seen 9 candidates for the same office on the ballot anyway?
Not since the R's and D's took over. That's for sure. But I think I've seen 5 or 6 candidates for prez once or twice. And then with local elections for things like city council where the the top 5 candidates win, there could easily be 9 candidates competing for the 5 seats. If the idea of redoing the voting system is to break up the 2-party monopoly, then under a new voting system, we would hope that we would see 9 candidates, if not more, for a single seat.
To be, or not to be. That is the question.
Say hi to your mom for me.
#2. To: CZ82, pinguinite (#0)
Here’s how it would work:
#3. To: CZ82 (#0)
#4. To: Biff Tannen (#1)
I'd love to see a law that held politicians criminally liable for there misuse or negligent use or even ineffective use of taxpayer money.
#5. To: CZ82, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
(Edited)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: CZ82 (#0)
#7. To: sneakypete (#6)
#8. To: sneakypete (#6)
(Edited)
I think we need to adopt a "none of the above" option,and set it up so that if none of the candidates nominated get enough yes votes to win,a new election is held,but this time the parties with the losing "none of the above" candidates have to pay ALL the expenses out of party coffers.NO matching funds,NO money at all from the US Treasury.
#9. To: sneakypete (#6)
I'm thinking this would only happen once,and we would immediately start getting better candidates.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
You don't like my shock collar idea?
#11. To: CZ82 (#8)
But what about all of the money spent at the local level to put on the elections??
#12. To: buckeroo (#9)
(Edited)
One of the reasons we don't have better political candidates is that the government system is so fucked upped, it can't fixed or changed for the better.
#13. To: buckeroo (#9)
We get the worst possible candidates because they don't know any better which means they will continue to erode the system and perhaps even at a greater rate as it is today.
#14. To: CZ82 (#0)
(Edited)
2.) First choices are tabulated. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected.
3.) If no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate receiving the fewest first choices is eliminated.
4.) Ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are now counted toward those voters' second choices.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
#15. To: All, A K A Stone, CZ82, hondo68, sneakypete, buckeroo, Fibr Dog (#14)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
#16. To: jwpegler (#15)
#17. To: Fibr Dog (#16)
What I would love to see happen is some enterprising prosecutor bring criminal conspiracy charges under the RICO Act against the Republican and Democrat parties. Of course since the two party fraud is the one who places the judges in office, this will never happen.
#18. To: Fibr Dog (#16)
(Edited)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
#19. To: Fibr Dog (#16)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
#20. To: jwpegler (#19)
#21. To: sneakypete (#17)
Probably the least-likely people to rock that boat that live.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Maybe they could all wear little collars. We could watch them on Cspan and when enough people turned the dial they would be electrocuted. They would receive mild shocks when their disapproval started going up to a certain point. Everyone would be required to participate, except illegal aliens and sex perverts such as pedophiles and fags.
#23. To: sneakypete (#12)
A famous and wise philosopher named Pogo once stated,"We has met the enemy,and he is us!"
#24. To: Liberator (#23)
THE PROBLEM: They don't call 'em "Party Machines" for nuthin'.
#25. To: Liberator (#23)
THE PROBLEM: They don't call 'em "Party Machines" for nuthin'.
#26. To: sneakypete (#24)
The ONLY answer is to ignore the big boys for the time being because nothing you say or do will matter to them anyhow,and focus on local and state candidates.
#27. To: buckeroo (#25)
The root issue is far more problematic: the two main political parties have IN FACT written themselves into law. This keeps all other political parties small.
#28. To: A K A Stone, CZ82 (#2)
This sounds similar to an idea you had way back when.
#29. To: jwpegler (#14)
(Edited)
There is a better approach, called instant run off voting, which is already implemented in some localities in the U.S.
#30. To: Pinguinite (#29)
#31. To: Pinguinite (#29)
Imagining having to rank 9 different candidates
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
When is the last time you've seen 9 candidates for the same office on the ballot anyway?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]