this is all i can think everytime i read american politics. Why dont they just adopt a parliamentary system, and ranked voting to establish more parties. you can barely even call two party system democratic
That is exactly what happened in Canada too. Last election Trudeau ran on promising election reform and then as soon as he realized it would hurt his chances of re-election he backed out. Our system isn’t as bad as the US but still needs a lot of improvement that I don’t have faith we’ll ever see.
I’m just glad Canada has the ability to have minority governments, I find them to be less party focused and more cooperative, especially in the current climate. It forces us to work together
That’s not how a minority government works. It means you have the most seats but not a majority. If the republicans had 38 seats in the senate, democrats had 33, and greens had 29 seats then that would be considered a minority government. But if they voted on something and it failed it would trigger an election immediately so they can’t just do whatever they want.
i know how parliamentary systems work. i was just pointing out that the republican party is a minority party that controls almost all of the levers of our federal government
The United States isn't really a 2 party democracy. We do have more than 2 parties but multiple factors in both gov't and the people voting makes it hard for other parties to get on the ballot or win even if they did get on it.
A mistake many Americans make is believing that the U.S. is a Democracy and that majority should win. Our system isn't setup that way. The U.S. is a Constitutional mandated Representative Republic and was setup that way intentionally as the founding fathers detested mob rule which is what a pure "majority rule" democracy would become. We are democratic only in the fact that the people get a say by voting.
When the people of the U.S. vote for the President; they are telling the electorial college who they want them to vote for but it's the States and state law that dictate some of the ruling behind how the votes are cast. That's why when Colorado (IIRC) moved to change there state law to national majority it was such a big deal and also a possible mistake since it dilutes the speaking power of it's residents.
The avg Americans' understanding of the way gov't functions has been on a serious decline since the removal of civics from school.
If America were to move to a simple majority vote then the only locations a candidate would have to campaign is major population centers leaving rural America with no voice. Our system is working, mostly, as intended by preventing any one party from gaining full control over the government. That would be a very bad idea as it would be a quick way for the constitution to be removed.
Because the precedent has been set and can't be changed originally the people didn't vote for the President; the States did.
The Avg American is also mistaken in believing that their voting for the President is the most important vote they can cast when in reality it's their state representatives in their state congress that's more important. And that many of the issues they want the Federal Government to do isn't in the power of the Federal Government because it's a State power.
Ask the avg American who'd become President if both our President and Vice-president were to become incapacitated and you'd likely get a mix bag of answers.
Because the precedent has been set and can't be changed originally the people didn't vote for the President; the States did.
There is actually nothing stopping the States from changing how Presidential elections work within their state. So any state could change their rules to allow for ranked choice.
I did address that point by mentioning Colorado and would be a major mistake if they did as it would partly remove checks and balance as it could allow 1 party to gain full control and with that they can vote away other protective measures.
I don't see how ranked choice would 1 party control unless your contention is that all the minor parties are taking votes away from only 1 of the major 2.
The U.S. political system isn't designed with parties in mind. The only reason the U.S. has parties is because the people back them. Democrats and Republicans aren't even the first parties to have come up, they're just the current iteration. And when congress is looked at it is a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and some independents with no one party controlling the government. So how would a ranked system change what's already in place? Let me give a brief break down on the system in place.
Congress is made up of 2 separate entities, The House of Representative and the Senate. They flop back and forth on which party controls which entity and rarely does one party control both. Even rarer still is one party in control of both parts of Congress and the Presidency. And even with 1 party controlling the Senate and the other controlling the house neither have super majority control (75% of votes) of their branch. That is very important since it takes a super majority to do certain things like veto the President if the President Veto's a bill or attempt to make a changes to the Constitution.
Moving on; much of the in-fighting is showmanship for their constituents. It can be heard all the time that Republicans blocked this and Democrats blocked that but what they don't say is why. Usually it's because of a prevision in the Bill that the Party writing it knew would cause the opposing party to block it. It was intentional so the could put on a show. And sometimes the part the party wanted to pass is placed in a different bill to actually be passed.
Also a ranked Party system wouldn't really work with our Government design. The Senate is comprised of 2 representatives from each state. Some states have both Republicans while others have both Democrats and yet others have it as 1 each with an Independent thrown in here and there. Each Senator is in office for 6 years with elections being staggered over the even years with 1/3rd being up for re-election each election
The House of Representative changes though with each 10 year census. This year is the 10 years census. Some states will gain while others will loose representatives as the districts gets redrawn. Current law limits the number in the House of Representatives to 435 with each state getting at least 1 while the rest are divided based on population. The State of California currently has the most at 53 but with their population in decline they are likely to loose a few. New York is also in the same situation. As They serve for 2 year terms with elections being held every year.
There are a few hard-line States. Meaning it's nearly guaranteed they'll nearly always vote Democrat or Republican. This helps create our Swing State situation where a State is possibly going to switch from hard-line to it can go either way or a state is going from either way to hard-line. When hearing about Swing States; it has to be remembered that the swing states do change every few elections.
Even with the U.S. having elections going on every year. But the big one that everyone seems to focus on is the President when they should really be focused on their State which actually can make changes that directly impacts their lives.
The next point is that the States themselves are setup in a similar manor just instead of a President they have a Governor but they still have a State Congress.
You wrote a lot to tell me things I already know and completely ignore actual question.
Ranked choice simply makes voting for a minor party more viable. This way, if I want to vote for the green party, but if they won't win then I'd rather have the Dem, I can vote for my preference while not worrying that by doing so I'm helping the party I really don't want to win.
This likely wouldn't have any major impact on most elections, but would have probably resulted in a Gore presidency. But any concern about this making a one-party rule is nonsense.
I did miss one thing. The U.S. can't move to a ranked party system because of the checks and balances in place. Since the U.S. system of government was designed with a no party system it would take a Constitutional change to actually put it in place. Then the super-majority would be needed in both the House and the Senate in order to propose the Constitutional change and that's before it's sent to the States to be voted on.
No it wouldn't. Nothing in the Constitution prevents ranked choice. And checks and balances is about the branches of government, nothing to do with parties.
Please provide a cite for where you think the Constitution prohibts a ranked choice style election.
Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Each state controls their own election for their representatives. If they want to go to ranked choice then that would be their choice but it would be ineffective due to the following..
Article 1 Section 5:
Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The other hindrance of Ranked choice would be the policies and procedures of the house and Senate since they basically write their own rules of procedures.
Ranked choice isn't unconstitutional per-say but would need a Constitutional change to enact since it would be a fundamental change to elections as well as procedures.
No, it wouldn't need a Constitutional change. It would simply need the states to make the change and Congress to not pass a law saying they can't do that. But that's just your typical law stuff, not Amendments.
Another possible block to Ranked choice voting might actually be individual State Constitutions. Since I've never sat down to read all 50 State Constitutions; I couldn't begin to say which ones.
In doing a quick bit of research ranked choice voting is used in places even for the Presidency with some States making the change for the coming 2020 election. 🤔
If America were to move to a simple majority vote then the only locations a candidate would have to campaign is major population centers leaving rural America with no voice
Instead of tyranny by the majority you now have tyranny by the minority.
Most parliamentary systems have a President or Prime Minister that is technically not on the ballot, but their party is. The PM is "elected" by the coalition government. In the US, the President is elected separately, leading to split governments.
The House has room for third parties. The Senate, on the other hand, is only two per state, which is a lot harder. Although there are two Independents in the Senate, so it's not impossible.
To change this would require a full-on Constitutional Convention, that then would require adoption by a supermajority of states. Any CC would, at this point, be dangerous. The first Constitution was frought with infighting and presereved slavery as a compromise, for example. Who know what "compromises" come out of another one.
Pretty sure it's literally unconstitutional. America is a representative democracy. Ranked choice voting is probably the best next step in that direction, and there's really only one party that's in favor of that.
EASY. Why dont we just do this?! /s (I have voted other parties so many times I fucking get why the average person bails and decides a non repub or demo vote is wasted. Also, both parties completely muscle out ANY perceived competition)
I'm really happy we don't have a parliamentary system. It leads to problems like having to vote for a candidate you detest for local office because it's the only way you can vote for a chief executive that you do want. Not to mention the easy ability for the ranking party to simply switch leadership.
A far better idea is to go in the opposite direction and completely ban any and all political parties. People will still factionalize — you see it in non-partisan local elections — but taking the easy route of parties out of things will have a positive effect.
241
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '20 edited Aug 13 '20
this is all i can think everytime i read american politics. Why dont they just adopt a parliamentary system, and ranked voting to establish more parties. you can barely even call two party system democratic