Saturday, February 18, 2006
Electoral System
I have lost respect for McCain because I think that he has sold out to Bush in order to position himself to run for President. I have lost respect for Hillary for the same reason - plus I just don't like dynasties at the Presidential level. Worse, I don't think that she is electable. I like Mark Warner, Joe Biden, or Wesley Clark.
I liked McCain (I might even have voted for him) and I thought McCain and Bradley would have been far better candidates in 1999. I thought Clark, Gephart, or Dean would have been better candidates in the last election. It is clear that McCain would have been more electable than George Bush. I also believe that Bradley would have been more electable than Gore. In our electoral system it is often the case that the best most popular candidates never get the opportunity to run.
This highlights one of the problems with our electoral system (Scientific American has some very good articles on this). Some decades ago there was a move toward open primaries in an attempt to democratise the choosing of candidates. Prior to that party bosses had a lot of influence in choosing the candidates. The problem is this, the party bosses at least had some connection to the grass roots base of the party. Now, with open primaries the so called "free speech" of big money special interests have a much louder voice in choosing the nominees. So, the process is actually less democratic. The current system means that candidates have to sell themselves to $special interst$ and to the party base instead of to the main stream of America. This is good for $$$special interest$$$, and it is good for party base activists like me, because our voices resonate more loudly. It is not good for the United States of America. The loudest voice by far in picking candidates, and in electing them, is the $$$free speech$$$ of special interests.
It has been a while since I read the articles in Scientific American, so my senile Reagan-esc mind is fuzzy on the all important details... but... one of the problems with the current system is that; if you like someone like Nader or Buchanan, you either have to throw your vote away by trying to vote for a "winner" or, you have to throw your vote away by voting for the obvious "loser". This is hardly democratic and will not express the real will of the people in either case.
One, of many alternatives, that addresses these and other problems is rank order voting. So, if there where 5 candidates - your first choice would get 5 points - your second, 4 points - and so on. The candidate with the most points would win. People would put their names on the ballot by meeting some minimum standard of popular support, then voters rank their order of preferences. This allows things like voting for anybody but Bush - or anybody but Hillary. It would allow people to express a mandate or support for the ideas of someone like Nader or Buchanan without throwing their vote away.
There are many voting schemes to consider. Each scheme has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Many other schemes would do a better job of representing the will of the people than our current system. ¶ 12:08 PM
I liked McCain (I might even have voted for him) and I thought McCain and Bradley would have been far better candidates in 1999. I thought Clark, Gephart, or Dean would have been better candidates in the last election. It is clear that McCain would have been more electable than George Bush. I also believe that Bradley would have been more electable than Gore. In our electoral system it is often the case that the best most popular candidates never get the opportunity to run.
This highlights one of the problems with our electoral system (Scientific American has some very good articles on this). Some decades ago there was a move toward open primaries in an attempt to democratise the choosing of candidates. Prior to that party bosses had a lot of influence in choosing the candidates. The problem is this, the party bosses at least had some connection to the grass roots base of the party. Now, with open primaries the so called "free speech" of big money special interests have a much louder voice in choosing the nominees. So, the process is actually less democratic. The current system means that candidates have to sell themselves to $special interst$ and to the party base instead of to the main stream of America. This is good for $$$special interest$$$, and it is good for party base activists like me, because our voices resonate more loudly. It is not good for the United States of America. The loudest voice by far in picking candidates, and in electing them, is the $$$free speech$$$ of special interests.
It has been a while since I read the articles in Scientific American, so my senile Reagan-esc mind is fuzzy on the all important details... but... one of the problems with the current system is that; if you like someone like Nader or Buchanan, you either have to throw your vote away by trying to vote for a "winner" or, you have to throw your vote away by voting for the obvious "loser". This is hardly democratic and will not express the real will of the people in either case.
One, of many alternatives, that addresses these and other problems is rank order voting. So, if there where 5 candidates - your first choice would get 5 points - your second, 4 points - and so on. The candidate with the most points would win. People would put their names on the ballot by meeting some minimum standard of popular support, then voters rank their order of preferences. This allows things like voting for anybody but Bush - or anybody but Hillary. It would allow people to express a mandate or support for the ideas of someone like Nader or Buchanan without throwing their vote away.
There are many voting schemes to consider. Each scheme has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Many other schemes would do a better job of representing the will of the people than our current system. ¶ 12:08 PM
