Want to vote for a third party? Here's how to make that viable.

Oct 28, 2016 3:28 PM

markptjan

Views

1102

Likes

58

Dislikes

10

Write to Congress and demand these things

The United States of America deserves better than a two-party system rife with unlimited corporate contributions, gerrymandering, and FPTP voting to bolster them. Want a third party choice? Here's how to make that viable.

current_events

It'll take some sort of hard reset to change the way America runs itself, and there aren't too many paths to this that aren't unpleasant.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We're voting to overturn citizens united in WA. If 3rds can get minor party status they can get more funding next election.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Tiny problem; the people in power will be reluctant to alter the system that put them in power.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

STV is better than proportional voting

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

STV is a type of proportional representative voting so it applies.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why Proportional representation instead of instant runoff voting? Doesn't it not allow you to vote for an individual representative?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Could also be good. But PR is a whole family of systems so it creates a larger discussion, which can include IRV.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you look at countries with multiple parties they are not models of efficiency and fairness either so don't think the grass is greener

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Still better than what America has. "Efficiency" is also overrated.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm not so sure. They end up having to form huge multiparty blocs to get anything done

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Consequence of more varied power, but also means politics are less homogenous and volatile.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

First, vote in people sympathetic to this. Next, get states to not require the 3rd party file paperwork in that state to be counted.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

No politician will ever vote against the system that brought them to power

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Many have though. Politicians aren't a monolith and often vote for electoral reform, especially if it earns them popular support.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

American politics is a system that will never be changed in any meaningful way that benefits citizens, from within itself.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Got a substantiation for that?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

An understanding of human nature as regards power/authority over your "lessers."

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Not substantial. Electoral reform has happened in many countries to the benefit of their society. For example, Sweden, 28 times since 1945.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I want no contributions except from actual constituents. No national money in regional elections, no corps....actual constituents only.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I wish the reply system would just auto break up long posts and order them correctly.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Gets hairy with constitutional interpretation. But a cap is how other countries control this problem. Canada uses a $3K cap, for example.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Nov 17, 2016 3:44 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Agreed, however I don't agree with your assumption that businesses aren't constituents. Then again with your definition neither are felons

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Anyone else, in the same election. But your right limit it to actual concerned parties only, in other words the constituents of the race.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Oct 28, 2016 3:40 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Nov 17, 2016 3:44 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

There are other ways to vote than with ballots, and concerns that need addressed whether the voting populous is aware of them or not ergo

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I whole heartedly agree with the idea that local elections should be locally funded. In fact I think local elections should not even have

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Will become the new special interest groups of smaller elections. So caps yes and business contributions yes but with the same caps, and

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Party affiliation for the candidates, these people are often only deciding what street gets paved first, who cares what party they are.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The corps do need a voice, but it should be limited in size and equal to what wealthy individuals are allowed to spend. Else the wealthy

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fact is, if the corporation is doing business or is based in an area it is a constituent and should be allowed an "equal" contribution as

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Constituent: being a voting member of a community or organization and having the power to appoint or elect. -- A corp does not fit this...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I can't insist that we agree on this, but I think I'm presenting a decent definition of representative government. It's about people.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Workers, shareholders, etc. each get their own vote in their applicable local/regional/national elections. That's a reasonable scope.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And businesses fall into your shareholders category, the only issue now with letting them donate now is the lack of caps and knowledge about

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is backing who with how much money, I agree that they get too much of a voice today but that is no reason to deny them an "equal" voice.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0