T110's Second Century of Civilised Comfort
Дата: 10.11.2016 20:50:22
KilljoyCutter, on Nov 10 2016 - 15:07, said: Preferential voting is an option, and has a lot to say for
it, but might be too far too fast for the lumbering inertia of the
American electoral system. If I were really feeling
ambitious, I'd make the primary fully open and let people vote for
their top three candidates, and the top three "vote getters" would
run in the general election. Party affiliation would be
ignored -- if three Democrats made the list, then those three
Democrats would run in the general election. The_Chieftain: That's what we have going on in California right now, at
least at the sub-Presidential level, and I think it's working
well. It doesn't change the fact that we're sending a Democrat to
the Senate, for example, but you now have a choice between the
'traditional', left-leaning Democrat, and a more moderate
challenger. That moderate may get not only some of the D votes, but
also a bunch of the Is and Rs who would pick him/her as the
lesser of two evils.
Jarms48, on Nov 10 2016 - 15:32, said: I'm hesitant to agree with the idea of the electoral
college, anything that makes someones vote less equal than someone
elses simply because they live in a different state doesn't sit
right with me democratically. Not to mention the fact that
electoral voters can vote against the people they represent. I'm
all for any improvement, not that it'd affect me being Australian
and all, but something that makes voting fairer for all Americans
and improves political apathy would go a long way.The_Chieftain: It really does take a paradigm shift to understand it. Every
voter has the same weight as every other voter in their voting
pool. But the pool is the State, not the Nation. The man is the
President of the United STATES, not President of the People Who
Live In All The States Combined. The best analogy I've seen on an
Irish board was to apply the thinking to the EU, and see how well
the Irish would like it if their votes counted on a one-for-one
basis with Germans and French.
Someone, said: But they already ignore vast swaths of a the country because
swing votes are just so much more important normally plus as best I
can remember only 10 cities in the US have more than 1 million
people.The_Chieftain: Well, to a point. California gave Clinton about 10% of her
total popular vote, but pretty much a full quarter of her EC votes.
If the Democrats stop paying attention to the cities, it could well
backfire.
T110's Second Century of Civilised Comfort