The thing is, there’s usually a reason why Chuck isn’t getting any votes, and it’s quite likely because he has views or policies that almost no-one else agrees with. And if Chuck gets a seat in Parliament, he’s quite liable to withold his vote from important things unless he gets a little something for himself (ie, some of his crazy policies put into action), so there’s a lot to be said for keeping Chuck away from Parliament via a FPP system.
I agree completely. But third party supporters often failt to have that viewpoint. They don’t think “There’s something wrong with our party that keeps us from getting support. We need to change our platform if we want to get into power.” The more common thought it “There’s something wrong with the system that’s keeping us out of power. The system needs to be changed.”
Martini and Nemo, do you believe that the right or best solutions to problems facing the country will always be found between the poles of the two major parties?
That’s sort of one the points I made earlier. Nobody understands any of these proposed systems, but everybody understands how a race is won – they’ve seen them since elementary school.
Generally, yes. If it’s an important enough issue, one of them will incorporate it into their policies. If they don’t, it’s because not enough people care about it for it to be important. As soon as the issue becomes important (ie enough people indicate that a stance on that issue will affect their vote one way or another), then the parties will likely reconsider.
Wouldn’t the threat of minor parties rising on the strength of such an issue be an effective way to bring it to major party attention? What better way for voters to “indicate that a stance on that issue will affect their vote” than by so voting?
Xtisme has no reason to support PR, because plurality two-party voting is working for him. Let’s say 16% of the country is basically Libertarian in outlook–1 in 6. Let’s say the GOP base draws 40% of the populace. In plurality voting, that much of a base often wins the election, & total control. And one doesn’t need even 40% of the GOP base to dominate the GOP coalition. 40% of 40% is 16%. In our system, the Libertarians have a chance some of the time to shut out all other righties from the GOP nominations–& then shut the left out of governing majorities, & get their way unstoppably some proportion of the time. In PR, they would always have–1 in 6. Forever.
So spare the protestations that you’re giving something up by sticking with a system that offers you disproportionate power. The Libertarians are the most powerful faction in the USA today. They run the GOP often enough, & the GOP run the country often enough, that the Libertarians run the country like a majority party sometimes. And Libertarians still play the pathetic populist underdog.
Yet the so-called moderates that run the media & decide all the votes in Congress are straight-up the same as the supposedly minority Libertarian Party.
In this particular situation, sure. If you change the numbers just a little bit, though, things get muddier. Say 40 people want Al, and 30 each want Bob or Chuck, but those 60 people would rather see the respective candidate in power than Al (because they fundamentally disagree with Al’s views and the choice between Bob and Chuck is more one of preference).
This may not work when you are looking for one person to represent you, but that’s not how a parliament works - Bob and Chuck could be working together and represent 60% of the people, rather than the 40% Al would.
Also, I disagree with your last point, it’s not that Chuck’s supporters want him to be the representative, but that their views are totally unheard in this example and they have no voice in the parliament, and that is an unfair system. Unless, again, you’re looking for one person. Obviously, that requires a whole other degree of compromise.
I agree with what Martini wrote. The two main parties are constantly evolving - they have no problem co-opting ideas from third parties if those ideas have wide support. So the ideas that remain in third parties are genuinely fringe ideas.
But it’s not the case that third parties are close to the Democrats and Republicans. Those two parties each lose elections on a regular basis but they’re always close enough to know that they have a reasonable chance of winning future elections under the existing system - they already have widespread support.
But the the third parties aren’t even close. When I said five people out of a hundred would vote for Chuck I was being generous. In the 2008 Presidential election, all of the third parties combined got about one percent of the votes. Why should we pretend that a party that only represents 0.1% of the people should have a significant share of power?
That’s exactly why I said this doesn’t apply to elections with one winner. Obviously, a vote for Ralph Nader is probably a vote for a candidate you don’t want to win, so he’s not a viable option for 99% of potential voters. Countries like France try to lessen this effect with two election cycles, which is, of course, expensive and time consuming.
However, if third parties are not a voting option for sensible people, how are they ever going to get more than 1% of the vote? I agree that the US two party system is probably too deeply entrenched to do anything about it, but the reasoning is ultimately circular - no one will vote for small parties as long as it doesn’t make sense to do so.
I don’t see that this notion of “usually” applies. PR can produce that result, just as FPTP can. The issue is how many political parties have sufficient support to win seats. If it’s only two, a minority legislature isn’t feasible. PR does tend to encourage plurality of political parties. So minorities tend to get more representation. It doesn’t follow that they get to hold the balance of power.
Why do you think we have a “problem”?
We had a tight election. Que sera, sera. The same voting system will produce landslides if that is the way the populace votes.
In 1975 Fraser’s LP/NCP Coalition Government won a majority of 55 with 91 seats to the ALP’s 36. Which is 72% of the representatives from 55% of the (two party preferred) vote.
Preferential voting is not a system seeking proportional representation.
The independents don’t control the parliament, and it would be inconceivable that they could vote as a bloc on anything contentious. The only thing they have in common is they don’t belong to a major party. The fact that there are 5 of them, from socialists, greens, nationalists and paleoconservatives reflects their electorate’s view of the majors, not the voting system.
But that’s my point. Voting for a third party is a option that any voter can take - and they don’t take it. That’s what third party supporters don’t get - most people don’t want to buy what they’re selling. The reason Libertarians don’t get elected is because most of the people in this country don’t agree with the Libertarian platform.
Exactly. Also, look at it this way: What’s a Single-Issue Party (and that’s what most minor parties are, really) going to do if they actually get Marijuana legalised or stop all logging in the State or whatever? What else are they going to do once their raison d’etre no longer exists?
At least things like the Monster Raving Loony party know they’ve got no chance of gaining a Parliamentary seat* and have some fun with it, providing a safe and harmless “Protest Vote” for people who don’t want to vote for the major parties.
*In fact, I believe that if a MRLP candidate actually manages to get enough votes to win a seat, they’re immediately kicked out of the party since clearly they’re entirely too serious
Act in their constituents’ interests and according to their principles. Single Issue parties and candidates have a history of doing rather well here in the U.K. The SNP, PC, Martin Bell, etc. In the last election we had a successful Green candidate.
While that may be true in the US, with an established two-party system, third parties in other countries have more on their agenda than legalising Marihuana, precisely because voting for them amounts to more than empty protest. The Greens or the Left in Germany may have started out as a sort of protest party, but over the years they evolved into a “real” party, because the system allowed for that to happen.
While we have our share of loony and fringe parties, there are actually more than two viable options on the ballot, with thought-out ideas across the program.
So I disagree with the notion that the Libertarians (for example, I don’t know the first thing about them) are as unpopular as their number of votes may suggest. It just doesn’t make sense to vote for them in a FPTP system, because you might as well vote for the MRLP (don’t know them either). So sensible voters are going to vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate they least disagree with, because they have no other choice.
You seem to be assuming I lean Republican. Let me assure you that this is an unfounded assumption. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that I’m some sort of ‘righty’. While that is true on this board, wrt to most other Americans I’m actually pretty left leaning or, at best, a moderate.
Libertarians (not that I’m, strictly speaking, one of these either) generally get about 1% of the popular vote. True, I think that in a PR system they would have substantially more representation (my guess…maybe 10-20%), but I’d hardly say that they run the GOP…or that the GOP represents a hot bed of Libertarian/libertarian sentiment. Possibly the Tea Party has some leanings towards Libertarian sentiments, though even there I’d say it would be a hell of a stretch.
Well, you see, what YOU think of as a ‘moderate’ isn’t exactly the same as what most Americans think of as ‘moderate’. You seem to be using the same sort of skewed yardstick that many of the boards more left leaning posters use…some sort of quasi-Euro gauge of where the middle of the road actually is.
And neither party (and certainly not the media…at least not that I’ve ever seen) actually puts forth real Libertarian/libertarian ideals or philosophy. Where you are getting that is a mystery to me. My guess…you don’t actually know or care to find out what real Libertarian plans are, otherwise you’d never make such a foolish assertion.
Can you name one vote in Congress, bill or program that you feel demonstrates this ‘Libertarian’ leaning? Any example will do.
-XT
Yes, yes, look, I’m getting off your lawn . . . Look, I was just saying that PR should be part of the public discussions in the U.S. – I mean, in the general public and mainstream media and candidates for office, not just among us messageboard geeks who (collectively) know everything anyway – and it could be under some circumstances. I realize that millions’ reaction would be “meh.” For millions more it would be “Wow!” And for others it would be :eek:. But there’s no harm in talking about it, is there? Else why did you click on this thread?
As for whether the American people are for or agin it – we won’t know, until they at least have heard enough about it to form an opinion, which they haven’t. Yet.
Americans are not as stupid as many think
They are conditioned to not ‘waste their vote’ and are wary of attempts to ‘split the vote’ which is where a minority candidate wins because voters who don’t approve of him are split between 2 candidates. Heck just 2 elections ago it was a major news story where the friend of a Democratic candidate started a ‘No New Taxes’ party so as to slit the vote so his friend would win.
If you campaign in the U.S. and you are not considered one of the top 2, you will get much, much less of the votes than represents your appeal to voters.
No harm talking about it, especially since it was a non-USer who asked about it and why we don’t have it here. 
I was just pointing out that it’s not a new subject, and that, at a guess, most 'dopers are at least passingly familiar with the concept…if for no other reason than the fact that you’ve started multiple threads on this very subject in the past.
I wouldn’t hold my breath is all I’m saying.
-XT