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?

[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.