It would require a change to either a single-transferrable-vote system, or to a proportional representation system. Either could be done without constitutional change, on a state-by-state basis. (Though it is true that doing it uniformly across the country would probably need a change, to give the fedral goverenment control over how congressional elections are run).
Let’s also keep in mind that there are very good reasons we do not have proportional representation and why we conduct first past the post elections.
The idea was to clearly establish a majority that could govern as the founders feared the bickering and deadlock that comes with systems that give less power to the idea of majority rule.
I’m honestly surprised so many of the posters in this thread were not aware that our election system invariably creates two-party structures. Yes, you can have transitional periods but ultimately these transitions are mostly historical quirks. When the Republican party replaced the Whigs it was because of slavery, once slavery was removed from the equation the Republicans were very much like the Whigs of old.
gail Parker’s website may have three planks on her platform, but to hear her speak you would think that the only thing she cares about is high speed rail. I’ve heard several interviews with her where she would take the question, mumble something and then promote the rail issue. She did it with questions on troop strength in Iraq, she did it with political contribution reforms, and if she was asked, she would have done it when asked what she was going to have for dinner. Gail Parker was a one-issue candidate in this election, and that’s why she should be pitted. If you are going to offer the elctorate a different option, at least have some depth.
Woo hoo! Way to go, Gail “for Rail” Parker! Shake up the system! Yea!
Eat shit and die. It’s my vote and I’ll vote for Mickey Mouse if I want to.
Just be glad you had a choice. In eight of the state/county races on my ballot, I had a choice between a Democrat and zilch.
What? I have heard reported that he said he would caucus with the Democrats. I have heard the Democratic leadership in the Senate say he would be allowed to caucus with the Democrats.
Oh, grow up. Your preferred candidate is not entitled to people’s votes simply because he represents one of the duopoly parties. He has to get off his butt and earn the votes, by proving himself better than the other duopoly candidate and better than anyone else who chooses to exercise their right to run for office.
My vote for Topinka wasn’t a “Republican vote”; it was a vote against Blagojevich, the incumbent governor of [del]Chicago[/del] Illinois. I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I just think Topinka would have made a better governor than Blagojevich. I considered voting for Whitney (the Green party candidate) but was indeed afraid I would have been “throwing away” my vote.
(See also: Illinois Voters–Who do you support for Governor? and Green in Illinois?)
Why didn’t you run?
He will caucus with the Democrats. The DNC leadership has already assured him that he’ll retain his seniority in the caucus, as well.
I’m tempted. I’m not sure what I’d have to do to get on the ballot.
I suspect that the local Republicans are so demoralized that they said “Why bother?”. I’ve lived in other places where non-Democrats had no hope of winning. Sometimes it reminds me of the Soviet Union. You can vote for anyone you like, as long as they are the approved candidate of the Party. For Congress, I had a choice between the Democratic incumbent (Steny Hoyer) and a candidate from the Green Party.
Of course not. But independent voters are being willfully ignorant if they don’t see that, under the current system, they are more likely to hurt the chances of the person that both aligns with them politically **and ** has a chance to win.
I’m all for discussing a change to proportional voting, instant run-offs, or anything else, but I don’t see voting independent as a useful political strategy to actually get the majority of one’s agenda enacted into law, or to break the two-party system (if that’s your long-term goal).
Ideological purity is all well and good I suppose, but it tends toward either being out of power or fascism. Neither one really appeals to me.
What planet are you from if you think that’s what Webb did?
Yeah, goddamn that democracy, giving everybody who wants to and qualifies the chance to run for office, and everybody who wants to and qualifies the opportunity to pick who they want to vote for. Buncha jerks…
We have 2 parties? We have corporatocracy party and corporatocracy light. They merged into bought and sold entities a long time ago. Third parties may be our only hope.
Lieberman is in a very powerful position – he won’t be “allowed” to caucus with the Democrats, they’ll beg him to caucus with them. He can dictate his own terms. He is in the most powerful political bargaining position ever, and the stakes are huge.
If (when) the Dems take VA & MT (I’m not going to get into the recount situation here), they have 50 members, and the Republicans have 49. If Lieberman sides with the Republicans, then the evil Cheney is the tiebreaker. Lieberman is in the “catbird seat”, able to demand whatever he likes.
If the Republicans offer Lieberman enough power – perhaps a cabinet postion like Secretary of State, or a lifelong appointment such as Supreme Court justice, etc., he may well jump. Connecticut has a Republican governor, so Lieberman’s replacement will be Republican. I’d expect the Republican candidate Schlesinger, who got about 10% of the vote, to be her nomination.
Never underestimate the machinations of an evil empire.
What if they don’t really align with me politically? The point isn’t to pick who is more likely to win anyway, its to vote for whomever you think is best for the office. I’d rather do that than always pick the lesser of two evils just because he/she is more likely to win.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
It would be absurd even if Webb hadn’t written explicit pedophiliac erotica.
Is this a woosh? I don’t see anything in the link that supports what you’re saying. Is there some irony that I’m missing?
Steve Warner, the Green, actually got 17% of the vote running against someone the Republicans didn’t even challenge. Brings a tear to my eye, that does.
Wait, could we have voted for zilch? Cuz zilch would do a better job than this botched abortion we just elected governor.
gloomy