America is Not a Democracy

[GannonFan]

There is absolutely no reason to have a system in which the President can be somebody most of the voters in the country don't want.

So what is the right percentage of votes that is needed? 50%? What happens when non-major party candidates pull enough votes in that obtaining 50% of the total votes is hard to do? Bill Clinton never reached the 50% mark, so basically more than half of the voters who voted didn't want him. I think there's about 12 Presidential elections to date where none of the candidates reached the 50% threshold (so, basically you could say that every candidate was "somebody most of the voters in the country" didn't want, and there's been what, 56 Presidential elections or so, so something like 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 elections end up that way.

Pray tell, what system are you proposing that would guarantee that in every election, most of the voters want and get a particular candidate?

[Gil Dobie]

I'd be fine if we get rid of the Electoral College system and go to using the popular vote to select the President.

I think that the Senate provides a reasonable opportunity for low population States to stay relevant since each State gets two Senators regardless of population.

I would also like to see us go to using algorithms based on looking at geography and population to draw Congressional districts. I'd like to see intentional gerrymandering brought to an end.

Do you think laws and taxes in Los Angeles should be the same laws and taxes in small town Louisiana? A popular vote would favor laws and taxes in the most populated states like CA, NY etc.

[Gil Dobie]

psephocracy

[JohnStOnge]

There is absolutely no reason to have a system in which the President can be somebody most of the voters in the country don't want.

So what is the right percentage of votes that is needed? 50%? What happens when non-major party candidates pull enough votes in that obtaining 50% of the total votes is hard to do? Bill Clinton never reached the 50% mark, so basically more than half of the voters who voted didn't want him. I think there's about 12 Presidential elections to date where none of the candidates reached the 50% threshold (so, basically you could say that every candidate was "somebody most of the voters in the country" didn't want, and there's been what, 56 Presidential elections or so, so something like 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 elections end up that way.

Pray tell, what system are you proposing that would guarantee that in every election, most of the voters want and get a particular candidate?

I favor instant runoff voting. Here is one discussion of it:

http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html

I think in our Presidential elections we would end up with one candidate being acceptable to the majority by simply instructing people to vote for their first choice then indicate a second choice should their first choice not be among the top two "first choice" vote getters. Then if your "first choice" person isn't among the top two your vote goes to your second choice. If it looked like giving a 2nd choice wasn't enough we could allow a third choice. You'd end up with the winner being the one among the top two who gets more 50%.

To me, in addition to ending up with the winner being someone more than 50% wants, such a system would have the benefit of freeing people to make their first choice the person they really want to win instead of worrying about whether or not it's thought that person has a chance to win. I think it would REALLY help third parties out and MAYBE give us hope to break the stranglehold the two major political parties have now.

[kalm]

So what is the right percentage of votes that is needed? 50%? What happens when non-major party candidates pull enough votes in that obtaining 50% of the total votes is hard to do? Bill Clinton never reached the 50% mark, so basically more than half of the voters who voted didn't want him. I think there's about 12 Presidential elections to date where none of the candidates reached the 50% threshold (so, basically you could say that every candidate was "somebody most of the voters in the country" didn't want, and there's been what, 56 Presidential elections or so, so something like 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 elections end up that way.

Pray tell, what system are you proposing that would guarantee that in every election, most of the voters want and get a particular candidate?

I favor instant runoff voting. Here is one discussion of it:

http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html

I think in our Presidential elections we would end up with one candidate being acceptable to the majority by simply instructing people to vote for their first choice then indicate a second choice should their first choice not be among the top two "first choice" vote getters. Then if your "first choice" person isn't among the top two your vote goes to your second choice. If it looked like giving a 2nd choice wasn't enough we could allow a third choice. You'd end up with the winner being the one among the top two who gets more 50%.

To me, in addition to ending up with the winner being someone more than 50% wants, such a system would have the benefit of freeing people to make their first choice the person they really want to win instead of worrying about whether or not it's thought that person has a chance to win. I think it would REALLY help third parties out and MAYBE give us hope to break the stranglehold the two major political parties have now.

This makes sense. I’d like to see the arguments against it.

[JohnStOnge]

I favor instant runoff voting. Here is one discussion of it:

http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html

I think in our Presidential elections we would end up with one candidate being acceptable to the majority by simply instructing people to vote for their first choice then indicate a second choice should their first choice not be among the top two "first choice" vote getters. Then if your "first choice" person isn't among the top two your vote goes to your second choice. If it looked like giving a 2nd choice wasn't enough we could allow a third choice. You'd end up with the winner being the one among the top two who gets more 50%.

To me, in addition to ending up with the winner being someone more than 50% wants, such a system would have the benefit of freeing people to make their first choice the person they really want to win instead of worrying about whether or not it's thought that person has a chance to win. I think it would REALLY help third parties out and MAYBE give us hope to break the stranglehold the two major political parties have now.

This makes sense. I’d like to see the arguments against it.

I didn't push the envelope but I personally favor ranked voting. You rank all the candidates on the ballot. So if there are 5 Presidential candidates on your ballot on voting day you rank them 1 through 5. That way you are 100% certain to end up with an effective runoff result. When the votes are counted and you don't have either candidate getting more than 50% of the #1s you parcel out the #2s from the people who picked #1s not among the top 2. I think in a Presidential election you'd almost certainly have one candidate over 50% at that point but if not you parcel out the #3s. And so on.

But the me making people feel free to vote 3rd party is huge. To me if there is one reason EVERYBODY should be for such a system that's it.

[CID1990]

This makes sense. I’d like to see the arguments against it.

I didn't push the envelope but I personally favor ranked voting. You rank all the candidates on the ballot. So if there are 5 Presidential candidates on your ballot on voting day you rank them 1 through 5. That way you are 100% certain to end up with an effective runoff result. When the votes are counted and you don't have either candidate getting more than 50% of the #1s you parcel out the #2s from the people who picked #1s not among the top 2. I think in a Presidential election you'd almost certainly have one candidate over 50% at that point but if not you parcel out the #3s. And so on.

But the me making people feel free to vote 3rd party is huge. To me if there is one reason EVERYBODY should be for such a system that's it.

Congratulations on the first thing you have posted in year that isn't you repeating yourself for the 1000th time.

[Ibanez]

You’re probably be of those benighted people who wants a constitutional convention to revisit the whole document.

Jefferson thought it should happen every 20 years/generation. We’re a little overdue.

Put that quote in the correct context (Shay's rebellion). Jefferson was saying rebellion was healthy for a democracy and shouldn't be harshly punished. Public discourse is necessary.

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

He's saying people can't possibly be always well informed and there's a communal ignorance. It's the Govt's job to correct that in order to preserve the Union. He's saying leaders should be held accountable with the "spirit of resistance." He isn't calling for a bloody revolution every 20 years. He's told Smith that liberties are "ensured by the spirit of resistance." He doesn't want the country to fall into a pit of lethargy and thus, lose the spirit of the Revolution. Stand up, fight for what is right and don't let your government run over you.

[kalm]

Jefferson thought it should happen every 20 years/generation. We’re a little overdue.

Put that quote in the correct context (Shay's rebellion). Jefferson was saying rebellion was healthy for a democracy and shouldn't be harshly punished. Public discourse is necessary.

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

He's saying people can't possibly be always well informed and there's a communal ignorance. It's the Govt's job to correct that in order to preserve the Union. He's saying leaders should be held accountable with the "spirit of resistance." He isn't calling for a bloody revolution every 20 years. He's told Smith that liberties are "ensured by the spirit of resistance." He doesn't want the country to fall into a pit of lethargy and thus, lose the spirit of the Revolution. Stand up, fight for what is right and don't let your government run over you.

I remembered it being from a different quote...

The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/w ... erson-said

[Ibanez]

Put that quote in the correct context (Shay's rebellion). Jefferson was saying rebellion was healthy for a democracy and shouldn't be harshly punished. Public discourse is necessary.



He's saying people can't possibly be always well informed and there's a communal ignorance. It's the Govt's job to correct that in order to preserve the Union. He's saying leaders should be held accountable with the "spirit of resistance." He isn't calling for a bloody revolution every 20 years. He's told Smith that liberties are "ensured by the spirit of resistance." He doesn't want the country to fall into a pit of lethargy and thus, lose the spirit of the Revolution. Stand up, fight for what is right and don't let your government run over you.

I remembered it being from a different quote...

The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/w ... erson-said

Revisiting/revising our laws is one thing. I agree with that - he made a good point. The present should revisit the laws to ensure they continue to make sense.

[Gil Dobie]

I didn't push the envelope but I personally favor ranked voting. You rank all the candidates on the ballot. So if there are 5 Presidential candidates on your ballot on voting day you rank them 1 through 5. That way you are 100% certain to end up with an effective runoff result. When the votes are counted and you don't have either candidate getting more than 50% of the #1s you parcel out the #2s from the people who picked #1s not among the top 2. I think in a Presidential election you'd almost certainly have one candidate over 50% at that point but if not you parcel out the #3s. And so on.

But the me making people feel free to vote 3rd party is huge. To me if there is one reason EVERYBODY should be for such a system that's it.

It's hard for me to believe Hillary voters had Trump in their top 2, and Trump voters had Hillary in their top 2. I would have slotted Trump #4 and Hillary #5.

[CAA Flagship]

I didn't push the envelope but I personally favor ranked voting. You rank all the candidates on the ballot. So if there are 5 Presidential candidates on your ballot on voting day you rank them 1 through 5. That way you are 100% certain to end up with an effective runoff result. When the votes are counted and you don't have either candidate getting more than 50% of the #1s you parcel out the #2s from the people who picked #1s not among the top 2. I think in a Presidential election you'd almost certainly have one candidate over 50% at that point but if not you parcel out the #3s. And so on.

But the me making people feel free to vote 3rd party is huge. To me if there is one reason EVERYBODY should be for such a system that's it.

It's hard for me to believe Hillary voters had Trump in their top 2, and Trump voters had Hillary in their top 2. I would have slotted Trump #4 and Hillary #5.

What would keep people from still choosing only 1, a voided ballot?

[GannonFan]

This makes sense. I’d like to see the arguments against it.

I didn't push the envelope but I personally favor ranked voting. You rank all the candidates on the ballot. So if there are 5 Presidential candidates on your ballot on voting day you rank them 1 through 5. That way you are 100% certain to end up with an effective runoff result. When the votes are counted and you don't have either candidate getting more than 50% of the #1s you parcel out the #2s from the people who picked #1s not among the top 2. I think in a Presidential election you'd almost certainly have one candidate over 50% at that point but if not you parcel out the #3s. And so on.

But the me making people feel free to vote 3rd party is huge. To me if there is one reason EVERYBODY should be for such a system that's it.

Put that doesn't really change anything - it's a window dressing solution. In this past election, those who voted Trump would've put him as the #1 candidate, those who voted Hillary would've put her as the #1 candidate, and both Trump and Hillary would've gone to the runoff election as a result. You're just fooling yourself that more than half the people would have voted for either because you'd only look at the runoff election results, and because you arbitrarily restricted the field in that election to two candidates you would say that more than 50% of the voters in the runoff favored the eventual winner. But if the runoff election has less voters in it than the general election, what about the voters who weren't happy with the slate of two candidates who made it to the run-off election and simply decided not to vote? I voted for Jill Stein in the past election because I found both Hillary and Trump to be truly detestable candidates. Once Hillary and Trump made it to the runoff election, and I was restricted by your setup to only vote for one or the other then I would simply not have voted. Sure, you get to trumpet that the eventual winner gets at least 50% of the vote, but you still end up with a candidate that most of the voters originally didn't want.