TBD

TBD on Ning

As we wade through the deluge of platforms and policies that are being thrust upon us, we are concerning ourselves with which direction we should cast our vote, that one tiny ort of a voice that is ours to apply to the future decisions and major issues that confront our nation.  As is customary in this country, the candidates with the most votes will win their races (I won't get into the whole electoral college process here).

If the candidate with the majority of the votes wins, it is almost an assumption that he/she is supported by the majority of the population.  This is not so, especially if there are more than two persons vying for one office.  In our country, it is quite possible for a candidate to win with the support of only 30% of the constituency, or 20% or any percentage as long as it is more than any of the other candidates receive.

Many other countries require that a candidate must have at least 50% of the vote in order to serve.  This makes it necessary for him to be supported by over half of the people that he will be representing and it is achieved by eliminating the candidates with the smallest amount of support and holding runoff elections until any one of the remaining candidates surpasses the 50% mark.

Do you think that the US should adopt this Alternate Voting system?

Tags: Political-system, elections, voting

Views: 146

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Naturally I understand what you are saying.  It is a distant memory hearing mothers tell their sons "i hope you will be President someday!"  The mothers of today try to steer their children as far from this field as possible.

What if the question is moved to the local level.  Would this be a good option for electing our Senators and representatives? 

I believe the electoral college should be abolished and we go with at least a fifty percent majority.

Bob, automatic runoff sounds like it would be expensive to the taxpayers, would that expense be justified in the name of 'fairness'?

I wrote a reply about two hours ago but when I looked back for more comments it was gone. What I said was. We should go back to the original intent of the writers of the constitution. They had a good reason for creating the Electoral College. It was to make sure that only qualified people would ever fill the office. The electors were to supposed to chose a president not just vote as their state voted. It is clear that they would immediately disqualify any one who actually ran for the job. They were not to represent any party or cause only decide as a group who would make a good president. Of course it was very easy for them to see it that way because George Washington was sitting in front of them as president of the convention. Everyone knew he didn't want the job and everyone also knew he was by far the best choice. When Washington retired after two terms there was not another "Washington" so the system no longer worked as designed. But I believe it still could if we really wanted the best person for the job.

P.A.  I wonder where your post went.  That was the comment that I responded to in my initial reply.

Then my answer is yes I think it would work at the local and state levels. Back in the day I was a high school history and government teacher and we always talked about alternatives to the current system of electing public officials.

Did you come to any other conclusions that would improve the voting system that we have?  I am not trying to put you on the spot, but am one of those that believes there are improvements to be made.  I haven't yet come to my own decisions about what those improvements could/should be.

High School seniors had all sorts or ideas but most were unconstitutional or unworkable. They did generally agree that election day should be a holiday (maybe they just wanted a day off). They also often mentioned choosing members of the electoral college by congressional districts and not winner takes all.

Students can come up with some creative solutions.  Ideas worth listening to.

What you are describing sounds like Instant Runoff Voting. This is one of the optimal methods for determining a winner if I remember correctly - I have a vague recollection hearing about this under the umbrella of the voting paradox in civics class. 

That is correct.  This would be considered voters' paradox.  Do you think that we already practice this when we make our own decisions about the candidates?  If I truly believe in the policies of the Green Party, but consider my vote a 'throwaway' if I support (e.g.) Nadar, am I not practicing alternative voting by throwing my support to one of the major parties?

Could the U.S. voting system be improved? The answer to that seems to have always been; Yes!

That is the easy question. The difficult question is; How?

Is ours a truely representitive form of government? I don't think so. It seems to be a consenus that money has taken on a much larger role in the election of officials at most levels of government. This is probably due to the proliferate nature of electronic communication.

The 50% rule would not necessarly result in the election of officials supported by the majority. It really is no better, possibly worse, than drawing the wining ticket out of a paper bag.

The higher up the chain of elected officials the worse the problem. The person who spends the most money for name recognition would normally get the most votes.

Officials elected at the state level do not necessarly represent the citizens of that state. Every year I get pleas for money to support candidates in CA or WA or other far off states. If I support a candidate in the state of Washington with my money, does he represent the people in that state? Or is he my representative?

The only solution that I see is public financing, with very strict rules about where the money comes from, and how it is spent. 

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service