No private money in politics (including unions, non-profits, &c)
No lobbying
Government funded elections
Three month campaign cycle
Rank choice voting

A girl can dream.

I'm also concerned that in today's political climate I can't wear a Cramps "Smell of Female" t-shirt unless I self-identify as a lesbian.

jason from volo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:33 amIt also generally forces people to choose between one of only two feasibly successful options, leaving many of us who do not perfectly align with either party a choice to vote for one of two less than optimal options or to waste our vote. I realize that many people don't see this as a negative. I do.

Even in multiparty systems though you always more or less end up with one major centre-left party and one major centre-right party (at least if you have a stable government and not something like the confusing patchwork of Italy since the 90s). Other parties are then maybe able to influence some legislation or swing some votes. Sure there is a greater variety of different stated programs, but what they actually translate into in government is another thing. I'm not super-knowledgeable on the details here, but I think asking what the introduction of a third (or fourth etc.) party would mean in practical terms is better than searching for a vote more aligned with one's own values.

Given that the US political system is much more individual-centered compared to others, and for this reason gives more leeway within a single party, doesn't this make up somewhat for the lack of other parties?

One case in which I can see this make sense is that different parties have their own "establishments" which plays a significant role in who is likely to be put up for president. In that case, introduction of other parties would have a clear effect.

jason from volo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:33 am

ErickC wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:22 pm It's a superior system by far.

It also generally forces people to choose between one of only two feasibly successful options, leaving many of us who do not perfectly align with either party a choice to vote for one of two less than optimal options or to waste our vote. I realize that many people don't see this as a negative. I do.

No, it doesn't. With a PR system, the party you vote for receives a proportional number of seats to its vote total. This gives third parties a much better chance at having representation because they don't need to receive a plurality of the vote to win a seat, they only need to receive a proportion of the votes that is large enough to gain a seat (i.e. larger than rounding error). It's akin to the difference between the proportional electoral votes in Maine or Nebraska and the winner-takes-all votes in every other state.

That's another discussion. The popular vote movement is stupid and the popular vote compact is also stupid. The former is taking a much more difficult route than is actually necessary to achieve the end goal of more accurate representation in presidential elections ("gee, let's try to pass a constitutional amendment that half of the states are always going to reject") and the latter is just another way of enforcing a different kind of winner-takes-all system, which just shifts the advantage of an unfair system (winner-takes-all) from one party to the other. Winner-takes-all is the root problem, not the electoral college, and the sooner people realize it the better.

It would be much easier to convert the states to the "Congressional District Method" used by Maine and Nebraska. Threaten to withhold federal law enforcement funding to whip the red states in line and threaten to withhold TANF funds to whip the blue states in line. This is precisely why the drinking age is 21 across all 50 states. The Federal government has no power to set a Federal drinking age. But they had the power to withhold highway funding. If you want to get people to do things, you have to do it with the purse strings. And I'm pretty sure this could be done by the executive branch as an administrative thing, i.e. Congress can go fuck themselves and a constitutional amendment won't be required.

The Democrats are just too gutless and stupid to do what needs to be done so they throw all their superficial language into a popular vote movement that will never succeed.

jason from volo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:21 am

ErickC wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:47 am No, it doesn't. With a PR system, the party you vote for receives a proportional number of seats to its vote total. This gives third parties a much better chance at having representation because they don't need to receive a plurality of the vote to win a seat, they only need to receive a proportion of the votes that is large enough to gain a seat (i.e. larger than rounding error). It's akin to the difference between the proportional electoral votes in Maine or Nebraska and the winner-takes-all votes in every other state.

It depends on if we're talking about local, state, or federal elections, since there are (potentially) different rules at each level, and also circumstance. I think you sort of implied this later on.

Just talking about presidential elections, I guess it could help them if that third-party was really popular in California and only won the plurality of votes in that state, in which case they'd get more than 10% of the electoral votes in one fell swoop.

On the contrary, if a third-party gets 5% of the vote across the board, they will get zero electoral votes, not 5% of them, with a very slight chance of getting one in Maine or Nebraska if one of the other two parties totally tanked there.

Anyway, I think it's possible my replies are probably not telling anyone anything they didn't already know and probably just coming across as whining at this point, so I'll stop.

I am primarily talking more about how we elect representatives, which is vastly more important in terms of actual enacted policy than the presidential vote. When you're voting for a large number of seats across a state, or 535 seats in Congress, 1 or 2 seats can be very important and PR gives third parties a much better chance at getting those seats than a plurality system, which ensures that, by and large, third parties get no seats at all. With respect to presidential elections, you're voting for one person, so obviously you can't divide that person into pieces by party. But the winner-take-all system in most states ensures that one or two percentage points grants all votes to one person and none to the other, making presidential elections inherently unrepresentative of what the public actually voted for. Red voters in blue states get screwed and blue voters in red states get screwed. The winner-takes-all signal boost favours Republicans at the moment, but the whole popular vote pact thing just shifts the lack of fairness from one party to another by granting all votes in the state to the popular vote candidate (which tends to be the Democratic candidate, subject to change, of course) instead of a proportional number of votes to each candidate. The whole electoral college thing is a red herring, a moving goalpost that energizes voters but will never change because you're never going to get enough states to ratify an amendment.

If presidential candidates had to win an actual majority of precincts in this country to get their electoral votes instead of a few key winner-takes-all states, you can bet they'd start proposing policies that are popular with the majority of voters instead of what energizes the stronger base in those few key states. As it stands, a tiny group of purple states decides the whole election and everyone else's votes are effectively meaningless because they're taken for granted. This is why presidential candidates care about precisely one thing: what give the voters in those few states fuzzy fee-fees.

ErickC wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:37 am

jason from volo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:21 am

ErickC wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:47 am No, it doesn't. With a PR system, the party you vote for receives a proportional number of seats to its vote total. This gives third parties a much better chance at having representation because they don't need to receive a plurality of the vote to win a seat, they only need to receive a proportion of the votes that is large enough to gain a seat (i.e. larger than rounding error). It's akin to the difference between the proportional electoral votes in Maine or Nebraska and the winner-takes-all votes in every other state.

It depends on if we're talking about local, state, or federal elections, since there are (potentially) different rules at each level, and also circumstance. I think you sort of implied this later on.

Just talking about presidential elections, I guess it could help them if that third-party was really popular in California and only won the plurality of votes in that state, in which case they'd get more than 10% of the electoral votes in one fell swoop.

On the contrary, if a third-party gets 5% of the vote across the board, they will get zero electoral votes, not 5% of them, with a very slight chance of getting one in Maine or Nebraska if one of the other two parties totally tanked there.

Anyway, I think it's possible my replies are probably not telling anyone anything they didn't already know and probably just coming across as whining at this point, so I'll stop.

I am primarily talking more about how we elect representatives, which is vastly more important in terms of actual enacted policy than the presidential vote. When you're voting for a large number of seats across a state, or 535 seats in Congress, 1 or 2 seats can be very important and PR gives third parties a much better chance at getting those seats than a plurality system, which ensures that, by and large, third parties get no seats at all. With respect to presidential elections, you're voting for one person, so obviously you can't divide that person into pieces by party. But the winner-take-all system in most states ensures that one or two percentage points grants all votes to one person and none to the other, making presidential elections inherently unrepresentative of what the public actually voted for. Red voters in blue states get screwed and blue voters in red states get screwed. The winner-takes-all signal boost favours Republicans at the moment, but the whole popular vote pact thing just shifts the lack of fairness from one party to another by granting all votes in the state to the popular vote candidate (which tends to be the Democratic candidate, subject to change, of course) instead of a proportional number of votes to each candidate. The whole electoral college thing is a red herring, a moving goalpost that energizes voters but will never change because you're never going to get enough states to ratify an amendment.

If presidential candidates had to win an actual majority of precincts in this country to get their electoral votes instead of a few key winner-takes-all states, you can bet they'd start proposing policies that are popular with the majority of voters instead of what energizes the stronger base in those few key states. As it stands, a tiny group of purple states decides the whole election and everyone else's votes are effectively meaningless because they're taken for granted. This is why presidential candidates care about precisely one thing: what give the voters in those few states fuzzy fee-fees.

Part of the problem with this is founded in the idiocy of us having states at all, rather than provinces. A good step would be to abolish the Senate.

kokorodoko wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:52 amI'm not super-knowledgeable on the details here, but I think asking what the introduction of a third (or fourth etc.) party would mean in practical terms is better than searching for a vote more aligned with one's own values.

I should also point out that more parties doesn't necessarily mean that dissatisfaction over lack of true representation will be solved. I heard people complain about this all the time growing up (I did too), and we had 7 parties back then. "They all sound the same" and "I can't find anyone who agrees with me" and "We're just choosing the least bad option".

ErickC wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:37 amI am primarily talking more about how we elect representatives, which is vastly more important in terms of actual enacted policy than the presidential vote.

Which is why I've been thinking it was probably a good thing that Bernie didn't win. Basically all of congress hates him, and he either can't get anything done or is forced to play middle-of-the-road. What a dissapointment that would've been.

Definitely some recognition here.

kokorodoko wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:24 pm

ErickC wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:37 amI am primarily talking more about how we elect representatives, which is vastly more important in terms of actual enacted policy than the presidential vote.

Which is why I've been thinking it was probably a good thing that Bernie didn't win. Basically all of congress hates him, and he either can't get anything done or is forced to play middle-of-the-road. What a dissapointment that would've been.

I'm convinced Bernie is doing more for progressive politics in his current role than he could as president. The Dems as a whole weren't ready for a Scandinavian approach to solving our problems, but whisper in Biden's ear about being an FDR type figure in a time of crisis? Now that's an easier sell

jason from volo wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:10 pmBoth of these groups, because they have some opinions that do not follow the predominant platform of their party, are often ostracized, particularly in the current political environment in the USA. They often get labeled as "centrists", but that's not entirely correct in all cases; they just have political stances that can be all over the map. That being said, these folks do end up being the ones most likely to push bipartisanship.

By the way, thanks for the brief, but I also wanted to ask about this. My impression is that moderates or centrists are those who are in control of the Democratic party. What currents, in your view, are the most powerful or have the most influence over the DP?