revamping the american voting system Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

The two-party system we have now is unsatisfying to a large number of people. It only allows for two people to even get adequate representation, though our country is composed of many, many viewpoints. Someone may agree with only a couple issues the Republican way, but a majority of the others the Democratic way. That means if they vote Democratic, they have to sacrifice their opinion on the other issues. People have to pick and choose which issues they feel are most important.

To rid ourselves of this burden of frustration, I think it would be best if we completely removed our system of parties altogether. We should vote on each major issue that arises individually. We would elect people to put the majority outcome of each issue into law based on their legal background. We would still have a President and a Presidential administration (for things like war and things that need immediate action), but for environmental, economical, and cultural issues, the people themselves would vote on each thing. This already happens on the back of ballots, but it has no influence on how things are actually chosen. Senators are supposed to help with the problem, but you're still voting based on each party and sacrificing issues you may have a different opinion on.

Would the separate issue voting work more effectively for equal representation for everyone? Why or why not?

[Mulder]

if everybody voted, and i really hate to say this because i really want to agree with you, then nothing would get done. like you said, america is composed of people with such different viewpoints, that they would never come to a concensus.
thats why we elect representatives (which i definitely dont agree with). we pick the person that we think will represent our viewpoints, but there is no one person who has the same opinion as any other.

there was once a one party system (really no parties) in the ... early 19th century? the federalist party ceased to exist, and Republicans (anti-federalists) had complete unified control. but in that way, unity was a bad thing. dissenters had no way to voice their opinion.


a government could never function with millions of different viewpoints. dividing the country into 2 parties isnt a good solution either. i guess we should aim for something in the middle.

[Heewee]

I really disagree with the current voting system as well but it would be impossible for everybody to vote on each thing, like you said. I just did my government homework, which consisted of taking notes on how bills are passed, and there are over 10,000 votes that are introduced to the House and Senate in each term of Congress. We have a hard enough problem getting people to vote for even presedential elections so how can we expect them to vote on each and every thing? If it's something that they really care about, they'll vote but the vote would be too inaccurate because the ratio of voters to the US population would be way too small. I do agree that the two party system isn't very affective and that we need more options. The way that the government is set up right now, a third party would never be able to win because....well, the government is set up for a two party system. If there were more candidates, we would have more choices....one that would more likely fit in with what we deem important issues. However, no one candidate is going to think exactly how you do and most likely won't have the same exact views as you.....it's just not possible. I think the next presidential election, they should include "other" or "neither" on the ballot along with the Republican and Democratic candidates. Of course, they'd have to elect one of the two candidates for the next term, but if "neither" is over 33%, they should make some pretty large changes in government to allow for a better chance to have other parties. Eh, just an idea.

[Gigi]

The ancient Greeks were a direct democracy, and the qualified citizens would vote for each individual decision, law, etc. It was easy for the Greeks because small amounts of people met up in the forums. But the United States?! It would be much, much too hard and much too expensive to poll voters across the country for EVERY decision. Elected representatives are simply the most logical way for things to ever be completed and decided on in government.

And even if separate issue voting were to take place, what would the system be like? A first past the post, or a majority system? How many more people wouldn't be represented fairly when those with an opposite opinion win by one vote? How do we ensure that, even though the decision has been made, that most people are happy? Simply too many problems arise, and that's why there are elected representatives to simplify decision making.

I live in Canada, a country with several different political parties. At any one point there is always opposition pressuring the government party with the views of other Canadians. However, Canada is such a large country, and our views are so different. The most heavily populated provinces are Quebec and Ontario, and these provinces have the most voters, and therefore more representation in the government. However, in provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, etc, people feel neglected or overshadowed by the eastern coast, and because of the sparse population in the Western coast, views are still not properly represented. To add to that, there is a separate party altogether that is dedicated to the separation of Quebec from Canada! As you can see, a multi-political party system has its flaws also.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Sure, some people won't vote, but then they shouldn't be mad. And no, not everyone will happy, but you can't please everyone. This just ensures that you don't have to sacrifice your opinion on one issue to make another represented. Bush got 51% of the vote and Kerry got 49%..that's really, really close, and a lot of people aren't happy, but what can you do? If it comes down to one vote, the person elected to draft the law would take that into consideration and make a compromise between the two options that were so close.

I really don't think the reason this wouldn't be a good idea is because the alternative is easier...that's just lazy.

And, you can't just make a chance for a third party if a lot of people say neither. How would you make a chance for it? That's not even possible. If the chance does not exist, it cannot simply be made.

Do you guys realize that this already happens, it just has no bearing on the actual laws? When people go to vote, there is voting for individual issues on the ballot. People answer them now. It would probably be the same if not close to the same voter base.

Yes, a multi-party system would have a lot of flaws, but I'm not even talking about a multi-party system. I'm talking about a no party system, with the government only being concerned with warfare, and the people actuall governing themselves, in a sense.

[Mulder]

^ do you remember the Articles of Confederation? where the national government had almost no control, except in issues involving war? it didnt work.


a non-partisan system didn't work either.




we just went over this in history.

history shows that so far the most successful system has been a bi-partisan one. i would be more comfortable if the losing presidential candidate became vice-president (like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson), and there was some kind of guarantee that the cabinet would be filled with people from different parties.

[Heewee]

And, you can't just make a chance for a third party if a lot of people say neither. How would you make a chance for it? That's not even possible. If the chance does not exist, it cannot simply be made.

Sure, it's possible. There are many things that can be changed to give opportunities for third parties. For example: after a party has had it's convention, the IRS matches the amount of money that they've already raised for campaigning. However, the IRS only does this for the Republican and Democratic parties. It is very possible to change this by them matching the funds for any party that raises over a certain amount and has a national convention where over a certain amount of people attend.

Of course this doesn't matter if you're talking about a no-party system. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to think that a voting system for each decision, like you're talking about, is going to work. The fact that not everybody will not vote doesn't just matter when pleasing the American citizens, it won't be accurate. The other day, we learned about people of all ages, races, religions, genders, and financial statuses when it comes to voting and the average voter is white, well-educated male who is well-off financially. When voting on issues such as taxation, the vote will definitley not include the well-being of all citizens.

Even if we did away with the whole party system, wouldn't there have to be people to run this whole thing? And won't they still have views and opinions? And some people will agree with those views and opinions and some won't. Even if we technically didn't have any parties, they'd still exist.

Sure, the system that we have right now has some flaws in it but this country has worked so hard to get to where it is today. We would have to be in a state of disaster to just throw it all away and start over. On the other hand, I think that we view the Consitution too much like a Bible where things are set in stone. I think that if we need to make a big change in our government, we shouldn't be stopped because some people over 200 years ago didn't think it was the best thing at the time.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Of course this doesn't matter if you're talking about a no-party system. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to think that a voting system for each decision, like you're talking about, is going to work. The fact that not everybody will not vote doesn't just matter when pleasing the American citizens, it won't be accurate. The other day, we learned about people of all ages, races, religions, genders, and financial statuses when it comes to voting and the average voter is white, well-educated male who is well-off financially. When voting on issues such as taxation, the vote will definitley not include the well-being of all citizens.

Well then, those people that don't vote can't exactly complain about the result, can they? If we do vote solely on a popular vote on each separate issue, the well-being of the voter base will certainly be included. Voting doesn't cost any money, does it? So people would just not vote because they either have no opinion on the issue or they are too lazy to get up and go vote. That's no one's fault but their own.

[murderous_though...]

I agree with you, it should definitely be more like that. There have been lots of things that I've supported from both parties, but we can only have one President so my view got crapped on. Plus if it changes to something like that, my dad can finally stop complaining about how politics suck this and government sucks that...he gets annoying. True it would take a while longer to get things done, but all good things take time, and if it doesnt take a long time, it isn't worth having in the first place. There isn't a whole lot to say else besides the points you already made save for personal views, but its definitely something that should be taken before somebody powerful to get it changed.

[Heewee]

Well then, those people that don't vote can't exactly complain about the result, can they? If we do vote solely on a popular vote on each separate issue, the well-being of the voter base will certainly be included. Voting doesn't cost any money, does it? So people would just not vote because they either have no opinion on the issue or they are too lazy to get up and go vote. That's no one's fault but their own.

You seriously expect everybody who has an opinion and wants to vote will be able to every single time. If a new voting system, like you suggested, is instigated, there would have to be at least two separate voting times a week where different issues are voted on. You can't assume that everybody is going to be able to get to the polls and vote. There are many people that want to vote but can't for one reason or another (at work, no transportation, etc.). If this system was able to work out, that'd be a terrific thing but, unfortunatley, it's not really possible. There's just got to be a better system out there.

[*disco infiltrator*]

You can still do it annually. That gives time for people to hear many sides to one issue and form their opinions.

[Heewee]

You can still do it annually. That gives time for people to hear many sides to one issue and form their opinions.

So you're saying that no bills or laws would be passed for a whole year?
How do you suppose that is going to work?
Can you even imagine how long that ballot would be? And do you seriously think somebody would sit through a ballot that long answering every single question?

[*disco infiltrator*]

There wouldn't be that many....and laws can still be passed in the year's time. If there is a big issue arising that needs immediate law-passing, there can be a vote put out then. But there rarely needs to even be such quick law making.

Just big social, economical, and environmental issues. How many laws are passed now?...

Also, there is always the "no opinion" option.

[zepfel]

How many laws are passed now?....[/font]

[/quote]


hundreds. laws passed aren't just "yeah abortion is illegal now." there are issues out of the spotlight, as well. i was once watching the house, as they were passing a law on the legal width of ships, or something just as thrilling.

[*mipadi*]

There wouldn't be that many....and laws can still be passed in the year's time. If there is a big issue arising that needs immediate law-passing, there can be a vote put out then. But there rarely needs to even be such quick law making.

Just big social, economical, and environmental issues. How many laws are passed now?...

Also, there is always the "no opinion" option.

How would one decide what constitutes a "big" law? And who would decide?

[*disco infiltrator*]

People would send in issues to the elected law-makers (previously mentioned):

We would elect people to put the majority outcome of each issue into law based on their legal background.

And those people would decide if it's a social, economic, or environmental issue of enough concern to the general public.

hundreds. laws passed aren't just "yeah abortion is illegal now." there are issues out of the spotlight, as well. i was once watching the house, as they were passing a law on the legal width of ships, or something just as thrilling.

Well, I have mentioned more than once that it would only be social, economic, and environmental issues directly affecting the people that would be put out into vote, didn't I?

I don't think the legal width of ships is a law that constitutes as an important social, economic, or environmental issue to a majority of America.

[*mipadi*]

People would send in issues to the elected law-makers (previously mentioned):
And those people would decide if it's a social, economic, or environmental issue of enough concern to the general public.

And how would the lawmakers decide if it is important enough to be tossed back to the general public?

[*disco infiltrator*]

With logic.

We elect those we think have a good law background and some good, solid logic skills. Also, if they recieve an influx of requests for a certain issue, obviously it is of importance.

[*mipadi*]

With logic.

We elect those we think have a good law background and some good, solid logic skills. Also, if they recieve an influx of requests for a certain issue, obviously it is of importance.

So how is delegating the task of deciding what the public needs to vote on to a political body decidely different from allowing that body to vote directly on issues? Will such a body not also be bound by political ideologies and agendas anyway?

[*disco infiltrator*]

No, the elected persons have to make laws based on the result of the vote.

[*mipadi*]

No, the elected persons have to make laws based on the result of the vote.

Right, but by delegating the task of deciding what the public votes on to a political body, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the public vote? If a body can decide what the public votes on, what keeps them from not having the public vote on certain issues?

[Heewee]

With logic.

We elect those we think have a good law background and some good, solid logic skills. Also, if they recieve an influx of requests for a certain issue, obviously it is of importance.

How is that any different that the party system that we have today? Of course people are going to have different opinions of what is more important in a candidate and who has better, more important skills than others. Your just setting yourself up for another party system without realizing it.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Eh. >< I don't know specifically what would happen in the system, it's purely an idea for a change. I didn't want the debate to be on how the idea would be instated, just the idea in general..

[evanbunnell]

You can change the system a hundred times, but if you don't rid the system of corruption then it will be pointless.

The odds of removing corruption entirely is so very slim, though, so it really doesn't matter.

Come up with a system that does not allow for corruption and you have yourself a win.