OT 2 party political system

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

I don't remember where I read it, but supposably George Washington warned against going to a 2 party system.

It was in his farewell speech at the end of his term. He actually warned against the formation of political parties (factions, as he put them) period, not just a 2 party system. Most of the "founding fathers" warned against such things.

---

And didn't Jefferson ignore it and start the 2 party system?

[Fyron]

Narrew, yeah, pretty much. Damn that Jefferson!

[PvK]

I think there could be several ways to improve the voting system, but the one that seems most natural to me would be to have the votes be weighted equally, and a simple majority wins, in a single vote-casting. That is, everyone votes for all of the candidates whom they approve enough to want in office, and the one with the most approvals wins.

There should probably be a minimum. Perhaps a candidate needs at least, say, 50% approval to win.

If no one gets the required minimum vote, then I suppose it depends on whether it's considered more desirable to get someone elected immediately, or whether it's more desirable to insist that elected offcials get at least a certain minimum amount of approval. That might vary depending on the type of post.

If speed is desired, then maybe don't have a minimum, or make the minimum low, and just choose whoever got the highest approval, as long as it meets the low minimum.

If a minimum approval is considered more important, then perhaps hold a new election, and perhaps disqualify all the candidates from the first round, since none of them were approved by the required percentage of voters.

PvK

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
PvK, what exactly are you suggestion there? Variable votes? If someone doesn't come out on top, the votes for the losers are re-counted using the second selection?

Ex, there are four candiates A, B, C, and D.

Voter 1 picks, in this order:
A
C
D
B

His vote is first counted for A. If A doesn't have enough votes to win, Voter 1's vote becomes a vote for C. If C doesn't, D.

[tbontob]

PvK, I think what Phoenix-D was trying to point out (without saying it), is that with that system, someone will get the majority of votes.

[tbontob]

PvK, I think what Phoenix-D was trying to point out (without saying it), is that with that system, someone will get the majority of votes.

EDIT: Sounds good in theory, not sure how it would work in practice. Like who would be the first candidate to dispose of?

Probably, a better way is the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his votes redistributed amonge the others. And so on, until there is a clear winner.

[Phoenix-D]

"That is, everyone votes for all of the candidates whom they approve enough to want in office, and the one with the most approvals wins"

How is this any different than the current? Unless you restrict people from voting twice for the same person..

[tbontob]

The more I think about it, the more attractive it seems.

For example.

Candidate A has a platform which 60% of the voter approve.

Candidate B has a platform which 40% of the voters approve.

Normally Candidate A would win.

Then comes the spoiler. Candidate C has a platform which had the approval of 25% of voters who would normally approve of Candidate A's platform.

So, you have
Candidate B 40% of the votes
Candidate A 35% of the votes
Candidate C 25% of the votes.

So, candidate B would normally win.

But under the suggested voting method, Candidate C would be eliminated and his votes would be distributed in accordance with the voters second preference, which in this case would be A.

So, A wins with 60% of the votes.

Now, normally it would be more complicated than this with some of the votes going to B, but it does illustrate the point.