Exactly, it creates the possibility of more inclusion.
Greater impact per capita to the winning side, of course. But by nature of that, it means you see more ‘losers’ than ‘winners’ as scaling happens.
Wouldn’t this boil down to ‘catering to demographics’ that already happens in our country? We have the religious crowd, fiscal crowd, 2A crowd, donttouchmahwelfare crowd, etc. They’re just prelumped
Although to your point it does offer the ability to kinda ‘navigate the stream’ if you’re not a 1 issue voter, where you can pick the unique combination that gives you the most of what you want.
Doesn’t this only work that way because of the parliamentary systems popular everywhere else? Where the PM needs to form a coalition to actually govern…
We would need some serious amendments to go over to a parliament.
Yes, but they’re out in the open with their goals as separate political entities and they have to publicly state their stance on every issue, so you know who you’re dealing with.
Take Netherlands for example - you’ve got the entire political spectrum represented in parliament, from run-of-the-mill Conservatives, to Bible thumpers (Christian Union) to theocratic Calvinists (Reformed Political Party) who want the abolish universal suffrage and the abhorrent concept of women voting. And that’s just the right part of the political spectrum.
Great stuff, guys!
Also, another point - multiparty systems are (well, in theory) more resistant to extremes from both ends.
Again, Netherlands as an example - conservative Christian voters vote for separate Christian religious parties. If there was a two-party system such a disciplined, highly engaged single issue voting bloc could in theory take over one of the parties through primaries, for example (that’s how the UK Labour Party was taken over by extreme leftists) This in turn means that centrist politicians do not have to cater to the extreme fringe elements to make sure they go out and vote for the “lesser of the two evils”.
I heard a great proposal for campaign finance reform that might work. Never mind big corporate money, there’s nothing you can do about it anyway. Give every registered voter $100 a year that they can’t actually put in their pocket, but that they have to give to the candidate or candidates of their choice. That’s a lot of money to counter the big corporate and private donors.
Yep, serious. It’s public funding of elections, which I wouldn’t have approved of, but having to choose between a douche-bag and a shit sandwich is getting old.
It will be nice to give myself an extra $100 every election season. I can assure you that I am my candidate of choice. I like it.
Would it really have that big of an impact though in our traditional two party system? If we assume roughly 50-50 or even 52-48 or something we’re looking at close to a wash. And then the big money still has the real influence.
Anyways an interesting thought though. I still like making Election Day a federal holiday so more people have time to vote.
You suggest that today? Of all days? The day of PRESIDENTS. We must celebrate this day. Washington would have much preferred a day about him
How about, instead of letting D.C. make the rules for the rest of the U.S., we demand that it only do certain things? How about we have 50 separate places that can do anything but a few things that the U.S. has been given the power to? Pretty radical, but it may be worth trying.
That was your first mistake.
States rights? Dog whistle!!! Why do you want people in chainz???!
Definitely didn’t use this racist term.
Don’t translate the whistle in public!
Why end it? The people who believe states’ rights=duh racislaverism are so ignorant they deserve nothing more.
Yeah. You’re not going to get rid of the big donors and “special interests.” I don’t think we should, because “special interests” are presumably citizens also. But the primaries are decided by who have raised the most money. If ten million people supported Bernie, they could throw him one billion dollars, that’s nothing to sneeze at. I didn’t like Bernie, but don’t think his millions of supporters should have been ignored because of money.
Edited for grammer
We might have to adjust the scale a bit lol
Roughly 180M registered voters means it shakes out to ~18B per election cycle
How so? 10 million times 1 hundred equals 1 billion. That presumes they wouldn’t spread their money around, but I said could.
Right, so for every 10 million people that $100 shakes out to 1B
So total voting population of 180M people = 18B total spending.
Haha 18B seems like a lot of money regardless of how it’s spread out.
Maybe like $20 a head instead of $100