On 2/18/2012 1:49 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Richard,
*De :* Richard Fobes <electionmeth...@votefair.org>
>
I do favor having more than two parties, but I don't see how three (or
more) strong parties can be accommodated until after Congress and state
legislatures use voting methods that are compatible with more than two
parties.
Do you have real world examples in mind here? Have you looked at
assemblies, to which no executive is responsible, that are elected by
party list or that
for some other reason have multiple parties?
I have in mind European parliaments where coalitions are typically needed.
In my opinion, coalitions require back-room compromises that most voters
would not like (if they knew what those compromises were).
I have not seen any parliamentary democracies in which voters are able
to elect problem-solving leaders. Instead, special-interest puppets are
elected.
More specifically, European politicians seem to be as clueless as U.S.
politicians about what is needed to "create jobs" and restore widespread
economic prosperity.
I have trouble imagining that this is a major issue. Congressional rules
based on the assumptions of there being two parties aren't in the U.S.
constitution.
They can be changed. But they definitely won't see revisions until there
is a need to revise them!
I agree that a lot can be accomplished without making this change.
I also agree that there are no "unchangeable" laws that would prevent
changing how voting is done in Congress.
Yet special interests -- i.e. the biggest campaign contributors -- will
never intentionally allow such changes -- because they know how to
control ("rig") the system under the current laws/rules.
I think I might agree with you to some extent, in that I don't really
care how many party labels there are. Whether there are two, three, ten,
or zero, doesn't
tell me much of anything by itself.
Well said!
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
