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.

[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.