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?

[*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.