Another message deleted upon trying to post!
I’ve been looking further into it, I am going to have to retract my statement that this suggestion by Carleas is legal now in West Virginia, it appears only one portion of the law was struck down. I’m hoping I can find evidence it has been fully repealed, but it isn’t looking good, I see it still mentioned on some election law sites that are current.
I can lose my vote, if I write down a alternative, and my alternative is selected, if I wrote in my primary on a petition for office. I’m a bit murky on what would happen to petitioners in this set up… that portion has been partially struck down by court. As it stands, until proven otherwise, I’m going to have to say it’s illegal here. You got 49 other states to try this on however.
And Carleas, I didn’t miss your point, I already answered it, you just didn’t understand the tangent.
We live under a presidential system, not a parliamentary system. A lot of political scientists think a presidential system is less sound and prone to chaos and collapse than a parliamentary system. We happen to be the black sheep in the family of presidential republics that isn’t a shithole banana republic. One of the reasons why, in my opinion, is we really put strong emphasis on inclusive representation, it’s actually wider on the party level than the federal level… we’ve seen presidential campaigns in territories such as Puerto Rico for delegates. Sometimes the only time people notices a group or region is when the absurdities of multi state campaigning narrows down a state, or set of rural counties, for support. Anyone is potentially in play… you got better odds living in Iowa than in the Brooks Range of Alaska to be reached out to admittedly, but each election is different, and everyone is in play.
Your talking about mathematically eliminating sections of the population to express their vote. Where do you think third parties come from? Its from elections like these.
What are these states pulling these math games, systematically eliminating the votes of the people as insufficient and invalid? Is it Parliamentary Democracies like Turkey, where Erdogan was at peace with the Kurdish parties in his own country, his policies upsetted him, they broke off his alliance… he failed to fain a majority, and so called for relections, eliminated that party in a still ongoing civil war, one Noam Chomsky is screaming and kicking about (my fault for not bringing this to the forum’s attention earlier).
These rules exist to give a mathematical sense of pleasure and completement of a ideal majority, a OUGHT over 50%. What they result in is hung Parliaments like in Ireland when consensus can’t be reached, and the collapse of the administration… new elections are called constantly in such countries.
Why? Because politics is naturally dual in nature. Political parties will counter one another over time, however absurd this position ultimately is, in a bid to gain majority. Successful political parties eventually get tied up into just two major coalitions, both parliamentary and presidential. Both political systems show echoes of the other. I’m not sure it is wise to import one of the more unstable, self destructive elements of parliamentary government into a successful presidential system, we are after all one of the few that actually works. If we are going to move in any direction, it should be one the basis of being more inclusive, not eliminating ideas, denying candidates, and giving the rights of coalition alliances to just the dominant movements in a election. Why the hell should any swing state, or swing district, listen to a candidate for election, if they know their vote for their concern has already been forecast to come in last place in politics? Your lesser known candidate championing your cause is gonna get squeezed out… one of the larger candidates will swallow your area by default… it encourages political laziness on the campaign trail. It literally cancels out our ability for wide swaths of each state to have a say, only people who get to have a say are the populated, urbanized areas who vote in bloc. Nobody will pay attention to outsider votes. Regional issues will never be able to become national because every politician will just focus on this minority, till they wash away all the little people around them, letting only their voices be heard.
No… I don’t support this just for a mathematical satisfaction. Many elected for the executive choose their competition who ran on long shot campaigns as vice presidents, or cabinet members. It gives a chance for consensus coalitions like in parliamentary democracy, without government being dismissed, or pogroms launched, or civil war incited on mathematical technicalities. If it gets too damn close, we flip a coin. We don’t pull these second and third world hooligan stunts suppressing the electrolate so a minority heterodoxy can swallow up all the little fish, declaring itself the Orthodox Big Fish. Our impulse to divided governments in representative government is a coalition building game, it solves these issues on it’s own democratically. People tend to find representation, but only if they are seen politically worthwhile. Your idea makes everyone’s vote that much less if they aren’t in these big groups, which themselves are often just stubborn minorities to begin with.
