4 ms·

I completely agree. Even though there are many political parties[1] in the US, there are only two that have the funds and mindshare to win presidential election

I completely agree. Even though there are many political parties[1] in the US, there are only two that have the funds and mindshare to win presidential elections. I like that independents like Bernie Sanders[2] and Angus King[3] manage to get into the senate, it provides a little bit of hope for change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_political_parties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_th... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King

spikels 13y ago
Don't Sanders & King almost always vote with the democrats? I would like to see real independents that vote sometimes with one party sometimes with the other and sometimes against both. That would be a true independent.
- unclenoriega 13y ago
  As for Sanders, given the two-party system, I would expect a senator left of the Democrats to mostly vote with the Democrats just as I would expect a senator to the right of the Republicans to mostly vote with the Republicans. We need more political parties on the left, right, and center, but I don't think limited options makes him a false independent. As for King, he's only got a few months of a voting record, but it makes sense to caucus with the majority given the choice.
  - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
    Left right and center are mostly party constructs. Political ideology is infinitely more complicated than that, but the idea of left, right, and center make it easier to lump your beliefs nicely with those of others, which is necessary for a party system. In reality a politician can be in favor of regulating the oil industry and against regulating the communications industry; there is not hypocrisy there.
harshreality 13y ago
The two major parties are propped up by the mathematics of voting, and funds. I believe mindshare is a symptom of those two things. http://www.rangevoting.org http://www.rangevoting.org
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Interesting site, but the process is more complex than I think it needs to be. Try instant-runoff voting[1], Australia already switched to it: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.h... Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists. Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day, all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour paid leave to go out and vote. (None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would help.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Not for single-winner elections. STV (IRV) isn't so bad for multi-winner elections, but for single-winner elections it fails monotonicity. (It's difficult to design a multi-winner election system that's truly bad.) You think Florida in 2000 was bad? If there's a significant election skewed by IRV's problems, the population will want to burn the people who chose it at the stake. http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assessing_IRV http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assess... http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compli... IRV is a hack to incorporate run-off voting into the first-round voting system, and run-off voting is lacking. In a political system as dysfunctional as the U.S., allowing voters to express true voting preferences is more important than having a voting system that will lead to only marginally better outcomes. Once true voting preferences are known, the political parties will have to adjust to accommodate that. As long as the voting system encourages some people to hide their true voting preferences, those preferences cannot push the two dominant political parties to change their platforms.

spikels 13y ago

Don't Sanders & King almost always vote with the democrats? I would like to see real independents that vote sometimes with one party sometimes with the other and sometimes against both. That would be a true independent.

unclenoriega 13y ago
As for Sanders, given the two-party system, I would expect a senator left of the Democrats to mostly vote with the Democrats just as I would expect a senator to the right of the Republicans to mostly vote with the Republicans. We need more political parties on the left, right, and center, but I don't think limited options makes him a false independent. As for King, he's only got a few months of a voting record, but it makes sense to caucus with the majority given the choice.
- MatthewPhillips 13y ago
  Left right and center are mostly party constructs. Political ideology is infinitely more complicated than that, but the idea of left, right, and center make it easier to lump your beliefs nicely with those of others, which is necessary for a party system. In reality a politician can be in favor of regulating the oil industry and against regulating the communications industry; there is not hypocrisy there.

harshreality 13y ago

The two major parties are propped up by the mathematics of voting, and funds. I believe mindshare is a symptom of those two things. http://www.rangevoting.org http://www.rangevoting.org

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Interesting site, but the process is more complex than I think it needs to be. Try instant-runoff voting[1], Australia already switched to it: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.h... Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists. Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day, all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour paid leave to go out and vote. (None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would help.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
- harshreality 13y ago
  Not for single-winner elections. STV (IRV) isn't so bad for multi-winner elections, but for single-winner elections it fails monotonicity. (It's difficult to design a multi-winner election system that's truly bad.) You think Florida in 2000 was bad? If there's a significant election skewed by IRV's problems, the population will want to burn the people who chose it at the stake. http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assessing_IRV http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assess... http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compli... IRV is a hack to incorporate run-off voting into the first-round voting system, and run-off voting is lacking. In a political system as dysfunctional as the U.S., allowing voters to express true voting preferences is more important than having a voting system that will lead to only marginally better outcomes. Once true voting preferences are known, the political parties will have to adjust to accommodate that. As long as the voting system encourages some people to hide their true voting preferences, those preferences cannot push the two dominant political parties to change their platforms.