3 ms·

The biggest problem with the U.S. political system is our first-past-the-post voting system. Are you fed up with your party and want to vote for a Green instead

by ktalm 7y ago

The biggest problem with the U.S. political system is our first-past-the-post voting system. Are you fed up with your party and want to vote for a Green instead of a Democrat or a Libertarian instead of Republican? Go ahead, all it will accomplish is benefiting the candidate you like the LEAST because you would have otherwise voted for their opponent. I'm of the opinion that high voter participation is critically important because if you're not voting, you're not being represented, and if you're not being represented, those who are will benefit (likely) at your expense. In the U.S. however, people are understandably unenthusiastic about voting, because it almost doesn't matter. Imagine what would have happened in 2016 if we had ranked choice voting and Bernie ran as an independent. Many on the left would have been energized to actually vote because they could vote for the candidate they actually wanted (Bernie), but would have been able to say "well if Bernie doesn't win, I guess Hillary is better than Trump". Bernie wouldn't have won, but neither would Trump. More importantly, though, those that supported Bernie would have been represented. You could point to the actual election results and see that X% of voters supported Bernie's ideas above the other candidates'. The problem with the U.S. is that we don't get to vote for the best candidate, we get to vote for the least worst. And don't get me started on the over-representation of low population states in the senate and electoral college.

mnm1 7y ago
Or even simpler, we could have a one person, one vote system. It would have worked in 2016 and 2000. When you have a system where the less popular candidate wins regularly, is it any wonder people are disillusioned by it? Let's not even talk about the Senate where 500k people get the same amount of votes as 50 million. Yes, the founding fathers goal to not let rural areas be unrepresented was achieved at the expense of making the most populous areas underrepresented. So now instead of majority rule dominating minorities, minority rule dominates the majority. Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong? /s
- miedpo 7y ago
  Mmm... just a thought here. In terms of the Senate and House, that's working as appropriate. Rural areas not dominating cities and cities not dominating rural areas. One would need a policy popular in both to create a national policy (otherwise you create a city or state policy instead). It's a good balance between tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. In terms of the electoral college, perhaps something similar could be done. Not sure how though.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  No way. I'm a resident of a rural state. The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. It's a big country, with different needs for different people. The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. Of these, only gun ownership even has remote relevance to Federal politics, and none of them are actually essential, or even exclusive to rural residents to begin with.
    - RickJWagner 7y ago
      Sorry, I should clarify. Those things are essential to our way of life. Our way of commuting, recreating, and living is different than what a large city dweller may be accustomed to. This is why the electoral college is so very important. Without it, politicians would quickly shift even more focus to populous areas, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
      - krapp 7y ago
        You do realize that when presidential nominees come to your rural area, eat at truck stops, pose with hunters, and give speeches about how the "real" Americans are the God-fearing people in the heartland doing honest work in the mines and steel mills and factories, that they're just pandering, right? They don't care about preserving your way of life, only the cold calculus of turning whatever states happen to be the swing states that election year. I mean, the two party process gave you a choice between a millionaire from New York with at least a tenuous cultural connection to rural America, and a billionaire from New York with none, and judging from your former comments, you seem to have voted for the billionaire, and then the electoral college decided whether or not your vote mattered, and chose Kang over Kodos on your behalf. Luckily for you, your state agreed with your vote. But if you happen to be of the wrong party in some states, thanks to the electoral college, your vote simply ceases to matter. I don't think the electoral college is giving you the leverage against urban cultural power you seem to think it does.

by ktalm 7y ago

mnm1 7y ago

Or even simpler, we could have a one person, one vote system. It would have worked in 2016 and 2000. When you have a system where the less popular candidate wins regularly, is it any wonder people are disillusioned by it? Let's not even talk about the Senate where 500k people get the same amount of votes as 50 million. Yes, the founding fathers goal to not let rural areas be unrepresented was achieved at the expense of making the most populous areas underrepresented. So now instead of majority rule dominating minorities, minority rule dominates the majority. Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong? /s

miedpo 7y ago
Mmm... just a thought here. In terms of the Senate and House, that's working as appropriate. Rural areas not dominating cities and cities not dominating rural areas. One would need a policy popular in both to create a national policy (otherwise you create a city or state policy instead). It's a good balance between tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. In terms of the electoral college, perhaps something similar could be done. Not sure how though.
RickJWagner 7y ago
No way. I'm a resident of a rural state. The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. It's a big country, with different needs for different people. The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America.
- krapp 7y ago
  >The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. Of these, only gun ownership even has remote relevance to Federal politics, and none of them are actually essential, or even exclusive to rural residents to begin with.
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    Sorry, I should clarify. Those things are essential to our way of life. Our way of commuting, recreating, and living is different than what a large city dweller may be accustomed to. This is why the electoral college is so very important. Without it, politicians would quickly shift even more focus to populous areas, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
    - krapp 7y ago
      You do realize that when presidential nominees come to your rural area, eat at truck stops, pose with hunters, and give speeches about how the "real" Americans are the God-fearing people in the heartland doing honest work in the mines and steel mills and factories, that they're just pandering, right? They don't care about preserving your way of life, only the cold calculus of turning whatever states happen to be the swing states that election year. I mean, the two party process gave you a choice between a millionaire from New York with at least a tenuous cultural connection to rural America, and a billionaire from New York with none, and judging from your former comments, you seem to have voted for the billionaire, and then the electoral college decided whether or not your vote mattered, and chose Kang over Kodos on your behalf. Luckily for you, your state agreed with your vote. But if you happen to be of the wrong party in some states, thanks to the electoral college, your vote simply ceases to matter. I don't think the electoral college is giving you the leverage against urban cultural power you seem to think it does.