Giving Third Parties a Chance
How about this idea to give third parties a chance of actually winning the presidential elections, without screwing things up: redesign the voting system by introducing two voting rounds. In the first round, it is not about electoral votes; instead, it will strictly be about the popular vote. After that first round, the number one and number two will go on to the second round which will be the same as the Presidential elections are today (with this difference that there only two candidates allowed to particiate). That way, an Independent candidate does not have to win from both the Republican and the Democratic candidate the first time around. No, beating one of them is good enough to make it a two-men (or man-woman, woman-woman) race. Once it is 1 against 1, the Independent candidate has a better chance of winning the majority of the electoral votes nationwide. On the other hand, if this third party candidate finishes third in the first round, he (or she) is out, and the ‘normal’ race is left, without him or he being able to ‘ruin’ it.
So, divide the national elections - basically - into two separate elections: one in which the popular vote is decisive and one in which state votes are decisive.
What do you think?
I don’t personally see how it would have much of an impact. You’d still have each side fighting to make sure that they’re side is on it to battle the other side.
And besides, a winner take all mentality is pretty deeply ingrained.
I think preference voting would have a greater impact. If you have ~45% Dem/Republican and 10% independents, then it makes courting the 10% important so their number two choice is taken into account.
Plus, a lot of people would vote for an independent but dont’ want to waste their vote. Preference voting allows them to do this.
Americas bigger concern should be keeping the primaries a case of 50 separate elections that matter.Super primaries are in direct conflict of the electoral system. IMO some problems w/ 3rd party and independent candidates include: Where’s the platform ? Are they truly independent or just fringe elements of the established parties ?In the position of President how is the (I) helpful ?
Actually, this idea was also on my mind at TMV, when several posts detailed Bloomberg’s decision to declare himself an Independent. It makes a ton of sense, because I count myself as one of those voters who would like to consider an Independent candidate, but who doesn’t think one could actually win. In many cases- like 2000, third-party candidates were actually spoilers, who enabled minority candidates to win the whole enchilada.
I don’t think any candidate should be elected to the presidency who earns less than 50% of the popular vote, regardless of the electoral vote total. This would prevent that from happening and assure many voters that they wouldn’t be wasting their vote or throwing the election to a minority candidate. So, good idea!
How would it?
While we’re at it, we might as well change the composition of the Senate to make it a proportional representation of state population too.
You guys are forgetting that the whole reason that the electoral college system is valid is because of the disparity of population density in the US. If the proposed system were implemented, the campaigns would take place almost exclusively on the coasts and skip over the heartland entirely. Talk about tyranny of the majority; the blue states would monopolize the entire political agenda.
Right now it would also likely result in two Democratic candidates in the final general election. I don’t even think that an Independent candidate would have a chance anyway, since most of the problem is the lack of a party machine to campaign and get out the vote for a candidate.
Maybe I’m just not awake enough.. or maybe having the kids home for summer holiday has totally fried what few brain cells I have left…
But I don’t really see how it would help either.
I do however totally agree with the GOAL if not the mechanism. I believe that the “2 party system” needs to be given a wake up call. I am an independent. I would like to be able to vote for someone I respect. But in recent elections it seems that I am just voting ‘for’ someone I don’t like to keep someone I really hate out of office.
The electoral system made sense in 1776 when mail took months to cross the country. With the technology we have now it is really unnecessary. I would like to see the actual vote count for more. It would encourage the growth of smaller parties because people could SEE the difference.
It really takes a massive movement to change anything of course, and it was just ‘an idea.’
Good comments by the way - thanks for the input. Some good ideas flowting around out there, the only problem - I guess - is that many people have an idea about what to do, but not much is being done.
3steps,
I can certainly commiserate with you on the fried brain cells during summer vacation LOL.
But I disagree that the electoral college system is a relic. The reason for it wasn’t just to facilitate the transfer of information, it was to weight the system so that the citizens of less populous states would still have a voice. The idea is that we are a republic made up of states, and the states elect the federal government. If winning the popular vote were the deciding factor, then the votes in the rural states would actual not count for anything, because candidates would know that they could win the election by getting the majority of votes from the more populous states on the coasts.
How would it help? By making sure the election was between the top two candidates chosen by the American people, rather than the party elites. By allowing third party candidates like Bloomberg to have a chance at doing more than “making a statement” about the two-party system. Any system that you come up with will have its flaws, but in my mind the two-party system has failed us, and its time to at least open our minds up to some new ideas.
Kim - well i could go on, But C.Stanley worded it as good as anyone could.