4 ms·

I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually

by Svip 10y ago

I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually a step in the wrong direction. Because while parties won't appear on the ballot, the parties will make sure to include their name and their candidate in every advertisement, so only few voters are unsure whom each candidate represents. Likely washing away other parties' chances as they don't maintain the same influence. No, party-list proportional representation is a much more democracy and fairer system. Because it allows a voter to vote for a party that's not popular in their district, but so that their vote can matter on a state-wide or national-wide level. Of course, that's a major overhaul of the system, but unfortunately, I personally believe that's what necessary. However, I believe that such an overhaul could start in smaller more progressive states like Vermont or Maine. And if the system catches on, there may be public push for a similar system in neighbouring states.

maxerickson 10y ago
The point isn't to detach the parties from the candidates, it's to make it so that party infighting is not the strongest path to the ballot. At the moment, winning a party knife fight is the thing that decides lots of local and state office elections. For the presidential election there would be more risk of pushing the election to the House of Representatives, but candidates could bargain with each other and withdraw and such. People would be able to figure it out.
CalChris 10y ago
While I agree that Congress and the States are not going to change the system now, that was not the case in 1780 or so. The weak Articles of Confederation were a failure and that system of government did abandon itself for a stronger more federal Constitution.
ende 10y ago
I disagree that progressives have a higher propensity for this sort of electoral reform. Progressive ideology is inherently an obsession with forming an intellectual monoculture hostile to criticism anf dissenting worldviews. This type of mindset is not conducive to increasing political diversity.

by Svip 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

The point isn't to detach the parties from the candidates, it's to make it so that party infighting is not the strongest path to the ballot. At the moment, winning a party knife fight is the thing that decides lots of local and state office elections. For the presidential election there would be more risk of pushing the election to the House of Representatives, but candidates could bargain with each other and withdraw and such. People would be able to figure it out.

CalChris 10y ago

While I agree that Congress and the States are not going to change the system now, that was not the case in 1780 or so. The weak Articles of Confederation were a failure and that system of government did abandon itself for a stronger more federal Constitution.

ende 10y ago

I disagree that progressives have a higher propensity for this sort of electoral reform. Progressive ideology is inherently an obsession with forming an intellectual monoculture hostile to criticism anf dissenting worldviews. This type of mindset is not conducive to increasing political diversity.