The cure for the US electoral system

[andrewducker]

Looking at the current fuss going on in the US primaries, it's really clear that what the USA needs is...a better voting system.

You've got at least six parties that I can identify:
1) A middle of the road European Social Democrat party (Bernie Sanders)
2) A centrist (or centre-right depending on where you're comparing it with) party (Hilary Clinton)
3) A right-wing-religious party (Ted Cruz)
4) A hard-right-verging-on-fascist party (Donald Trump)
5) Greens (They do exist, apparently)
6) Libertarians (Likewise)

Plus, presumably, the usual smatterings of Communist, Socialist, Pirates, etc. that crop up everywhere.

The problem being that right now, because of the two-party system, everyone gets pushed into either being a Democrat or a Republican, with the result that each of those parties needs all of the people on their side of the dividing line, no matter how ridiculously awful they are. Given a voting system which either allowed people to rank candidates, or gave results proportionate to the people who voted for them (or both)*, you wouldn't end up with your "I believe in capitalism but I'm not actually Satan" right-wingers feeling they have to support Trump, or with Hilary and Bernie supporters both telling each other that they have to support their candidate or the bad guys win. Instead you'd have actual separate parties - which would then, admittedly, have to work together to pass bills - but that's much easier when you have mixes of parties who aren't all so incredibly opposed to each other.

Basically, any system where splitting the vote means you lose is a terrible, awful thing which causes terrible politics. Like what we're seeing in the USA at the moment (and what we see whenever there's a UK-wide election).

And yet, while I see a lot of people in the UK talking about electoral reform, I don't see anything similar coming from the USA. I wonder why that is.



*Obviously for the presidential election you want to rank candidates, because there's only one person elected at the end of it, and you can't make just their left-foot Libertarian. Although that is an excellent idea for a short story that someone else should write.

Comments

[miss_s_b]

I have wondered that too

[azurelunatic]

The number one position on electoral reform over here is "look, you don't have to make it THAT EASY to buy politicians, please!" lately. Bernie's been pretty loud on that front.

Anything beyond that is remote to the point of hallucination or mirage: it would be great, but would require a certain amount of dismantling of entrenched positions...

In the last few years, the hard-right has bubbled up inside the rich-but-not-actually-fascist right wing, and the effect has been the dismay of the moderate-right folks and a halfhearted attempt to disavow them and split while not actually succeeding. Racism has been a substantial driver of the utter legislative deadlock, and one of my liberal dude friends has proposed that a Clinton presidency would mean that kind of backlash against women, and has suggested that maybe we do want President Trump because that level of backlash would be intolerable. I kind of want to punch him.

Perhaps what we need is a political anti-trust action?

The Left-foot Libertarian

[hilarita]

Obviously you can go for a Christian biotech thriller, what with Christ being head of the Church, and the USA's attitude to selective quoting from Paul's letters in the Bible... I think this would end up being very creepy and disturbing...

[conuly]

I'd be happy enough just being allowed to vote for multiple candidates. We don't need to be able to rank them, we just need a simple and intuitive way for us to vote for whomever we like, even if that's lots of people.

[nickbarlow]

I've seen some attempts at electoral reform within the US, but it's mostly been tweaks within the current system, like California's move to an open primary system. (It's like the French system - all candidates from all parties compete in a primary, and then the top two go into a run-off in November, which means the Senate election this November will be between two Democrats)

I think the problem is that because the Presidential election system is hardwired into the Constitution and amending the Constitution is near impossible in the current political climate, there's no clear path for major electoral reform. There are attempts like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) to get round that problem, but I can see that giving the lawyers a field day if it ever reaches the point it can be enacted.

The other problem is that the two-party system is so institutionalised within the system, it's much harder for new parties and movements to rise than they can in other countries. Just getting on the ballot can be near-impossible for minor parties in some states, let alone competing with the others at a meaningful level.

[andrewducker]

I thought the NPVIC was designed to take into account the way that states vote for the president?

But yeah, the institutionalisation of the two-party system is the problem.

[birguslatro]

Firstly, the US Presidency is deliberately not a very powerful post. Witness Obama's inability to produce any gun-control reform. It's Congress that has the real power.

This is probably for the best, given the harm a powerful US President could unleash.

In the age of social media though, I see no reason why I new party couldn't gain traction and get control of Congress and the Presidency. The means are there, just not the will.

[andrewducker]

When you can't vote third-party without letting in Satan, that acts as rather a disincentive.

[birguslatro]

You would obviously focus a third party on getting seats in Congress first, then aim for the Presidency when you have close to a third of them there. Bernie Sanders would be a good candidate to base such a party on, since he's already an independent (sort of).

For any new party to succeed (anywhere), they need a well thought out policy and good candidates and leaders who're able to articulate it. Most new parties fail in some of those areas, and especially policy.