6 ms·

I'd rather see a proportional system.

wolfram74 3y ago
The problem is first past the post is in the running for the worst way to run a democracy, so basically any reform option would work, and it's hard to get consensus around change.
- mcphage 3y ago
  Are you saying that First Past the Post won at being First Past the Post? :-)
grotorea 3y ago
(Closed-list) proportional system wouldn't stop an unfit party insider being put at the top of the list.
- davidw 3y ago
  Proportional has other flaws too, like small parties playing 'kingmaker'. As in: say the two major parties each get 45%, and I run an outfit that got 10%. To have a majority, you're going to have to deal with me, so I'm going to have way more influence than my 10% would warrant. I've seen this happen in the real world in Italy.
banannaise 3y ago
A proportional system will still have one of the primary issues with the current system: the parties choose their representatives, and the two major ones will continue to trot out just the worst people they can find. (Yes, there are primaries, but the DNC and RNC hold an astronomical amount of power in picking the candidates and influencing the winners.)
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  But that's not a problem when you can just defect from the major parties with no penalty. The major parties are only able to continually put up garbage candidates because there are no other options.
mcv 3y ago
Ranked voting for single offices (president, governor, etc), and proportional for any representative body, like the House and Senate. Or, if the Senate is really meant to represent the states rather than the people, it should only be concerned with state issues: which issues belong at the federal level, and which at the state level, for example.
bombcar 3y ago
I'd be fine with a literal random selection with the people being able to trigger "no-confidence" at set intervals. Can't be much worse and statistically it should have basically the same outcome.

The problem is first past the post is in the running for the worst way to run a democracy, so basically any reform option would work, and it's hard to get consensus around change.

mcphage 3y ago
Are you saying that First Past the Post won at being First Past the Post? :-)

grotorea 3y ago

(Closed-list) proportional system wouldn't stop an unfit party insider being put at the top of the list.

davidw 3y ago
Proportional has other flaws too, like small parties playing 'kingmaker'. As in: say the two major parties each get 45%, and I run an outfit that got 10%. To have a majority, you're going to have to deal with me, so I'm going to have way more influence than my 10% would warrant. I've seen this happen in the real world in Italy.

banannaise 3y ago

A proportional system will still have one of the primary issues with the current system: the parties choose their representatives, and the two major ones will continue to trot out just the worst people they can find. (Yes, there are primaries, but the DNC and RNC hold an astronomical amount of power in picking the candidates and influencing the winners.)

HDThoreaun 3y ago
But that's not a problem when you can just defect from the major parties with no penalty. The major parties are only able to continually put up garbage candidates because there are no other options.

mcv 3y ago

Ranked voting for single offices (president, governor, etc), and proportional for any representative body, like the House and Senate. Or, if the Senate is really meant to represent the states rather than the people, it should only be concerned with state issues: which issues belong at the federal level, and which at the state level, for example.

bombcar 3y ago

I'd be fine with a literal random selection with the people being able to trigger "no-confidence" at set intervals. Can't be much worse and statistically it should have basically the same outcome.