I just have to say, this issue is one I have thought quite a bit about, and I'm not convinced the voting system itself is so bad. Don't get me wrong, I see the major downsides of a first past the post system, and I'm open to change, but in looking at the actual problem what I see is a different issue, namely, gerrymandering, at both federal and state level. My primary proposition as a systematic fix for gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts and reduce existing ones size.
Of course the other primary factor in all this is a fourth estate failing to do its job.
Also, duvergers law is not so concrete a truism as people like to think.
What do you think about removing the cap on the House of Representatives at 435? I think Democrats should really support this completely Constitutional fix to the electoral college instead of advocating that it be removed.
Interestingly US initially had much lower person per representative ratio. If that ratio was maintained, we would have thousands of representatives in the House, and so would be more representative.
>With the compromise constitutional ratio (1:30,000) in mind and given that the U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are currently about 313.9 million inhabitants of the United States, if the Constitution were being followed, there would be approximately 10,463 members of the House of Representatives.
I'd be okay with this. It would really change the make up of our government. Senators would seem far more powerful in comparison.
The electoral college would be completely different as well. Using the population data on Wikipedia, at 1:30,000 California would have 1309 representatives and Wyoming would have 20. That would mean in the electoral college California would be worth 1311 points and Wyoming 22 vs 55 and 3 today.
I always thought so, but then I look at Australia, which has instant runoff voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Australi...). And we too have almost a two party system (Labor vs Liberals), the other parties get a seat here and there, but the big two don't show any signs of going away.
That's strange. Here in Germany it works out quite well. Sure, we do have two large parties as well (SPD and CDU), but there are several smaller parties which do have significant results, and hence significant influence.
The classic example was the smaller party FDP some decades ago. Although SPD and CDU each had many more seats than FDP, both needed the FDP to have more than 50% of the seats. So whoever the FDP joined with, that party became part of the government, while the other became opposition. Some people even subjected that this was too much power/influence for such a small party. (Then, more smaller parties received a significant amount of votes, and things became even more complicated, but also more interesting!)
One difference might be that those two parties now use parts of other minor parties' platforms as a way to convince voters to consider them. If that were the case then at least there's greater breadth of political opinion/discourse.
Our compulsory voting is really "compulsory voting". It's "compulsory turn up to a polling station and get your name marked off". You can drop an empty ballot in the box, draw penises on it, or even just turn and walk out of the polling place.
Also, the OP underestimates the impact of the minor parties. While there are two major parties, one of them is a coalition between two parties (Liberals and the Nationals), and there's a significant block of smaller parties and independents that are big enough that when they vote together they can have a deciding vote on legislation.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the CPD's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls to be included in presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of the lawsuits has been successful.
No, it's definitely our electoral system. FPTP fundamentally shifts a system toward two major parties, and no amount of tinkering with debates or other reforms at the margins will make third parties competitive.
Why is it a competition for a singular explanation? Why can't both be necessary but not independently sufficient conditions? I sense a middle being excluded somewhere.
I'd still say FPTP is like 80% of the reason why third-parties can't rise to power in the U.S. and elsewhere, but yes, the two main parties have added further obstacles to make the rise of third-parties in the U.S. from almost impossible to virtually impossible (save for a country-wide "wake up" and a huge rally behind a "surprise" new party, etc)
> The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road.
Of course we can. Especially if they happen to primarily benefit the people already in power and in charge; especially if nobody runs on an election reform platform; especially if most of the electorate doesn't understand or can't/doesn't want to make the mental effort to understand what's wrong with FPTP; and especially if people keep getting distracted by other (admittedly very important) issues during campaigns.
Condorcet Voting and multi-member district representation would go much further toward a more egalitarian political system than the stuff FairVote focuses on.
None of these things, however, is as effective as sustained, direct action. Even with our broken one-party-two-factions system this is so.
“Every four years, we suffer through the celebration of democracy (and national nightmare) that is a presidential election,” Brown wrote in her opinion. “And, in the end, one person is selected to occupy our nation’s highest office. But in every hard-fought presidential election there are losers. And, with quadrennial regularity, those losers turn to the courts.”
They turn to the courts because they're systematically excluded from the debate stage.
The voting system is not the problem. The logistics of running a successful campaign are. The amount of advertising, canvassing, fundraising, and other effort that goes into American politics is insane - and unless you have the backing of a party, you are quite literally fighting an uphill battle.
Recall the republican voter list leaks last year. Now, consider how much money it would take to gather that much information, at that level of fidelity. Now, consider how much of an advantage a sanctioned party candidate has, when you run against them.
That's not really true. There are plenty of places where the voting system wouldn't hurt third parties (districts where one part or the other is practically non-existent, districts where the incumbent doesn't face a challenger, non-partisan races), but you largely don't see them making any progress there either.
The VPP is the most successful third party (most state reps), and it's only active in one state. The complete inability for other third parties to make almost any progress underscores the problems with the parties themselves (independents have been more successful than third party candidates).
Of course the other primary factor in all this is a fourth estate failing to do its job.
Also, duvergers law is not so concrete a truism as people like to think.