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.