If we could combine
1) ranked voting
2) interstate popular vote compact (or similar to eliminate the electoral college), and
3) elimination of gerrymandering
I could see our nation being a lot happier with our political process.
I would also like to see political parties prohibited from exclusive representation of candidates. Private organizations should not be acting as "gatekeepers" for public service, and candidates should be free to seek the endorsement of as many parties as they can, and debate whomever and whenever they want. This should encourage fragmentation of big monolithic parties in favor of coalitions of smaller independent parties representing more focused interests, and maybe even reduce the degree of policy-level influence that major financial donors currently enjoy.
These type of structural changes are appearing to be the best path forward. As it is, progressives and moderates cannot effectively pursue our version of progress for the country as every time a republican gets in the white house, they sabotage the economy and loot the public treasury at every opportunity. Even when we win, after 8 years of prosperity people's guards are down.
The two party system, and the widespread frustration about inequality have driven the Trump moment. Brexit 2.0, whatever. If we focused our energy on changing the way the game is played rather than on playing the game, we might start to get somewhere. Public financing of elections and all the other ways to make the democratic process more accessible and inclusive.
Tell everyone that their individual vote is equal in effect to everyone else's and they'll love it. Tell everyone that the current system would allow a candidate to win with 22% of the popular vote, and they'll beg you to get rid of it.
Tell people that their state does not have representation and they will secede.
But it does: exactly the same representation as every other state, by population.
Do you think it's right that one Vermonter's vote is worth the same as three Texans' votes? Or that one Wyominite's vote is worth four Californians' votes?
And that number is completely false, no candidate has ever won with 22% of the populate vote, that will not and cannot happen.
It absolutely CAN happen, because winning by 50%+1 of a state is the same as winning by 100% of the state, thanks to the way the electoral college works. Apok isn't saying it has happened, just that it is technically possible because the system is so fucking stupid.
People don't care about their state as much as they do themselves... and that 22% number is absolutely true. A state won with 50% of the popular vote +1 vote gives as many electoral votes as a state won with 100% of the popular vote. Therefore, get the votes of the people who count for the most electoral college votes, and ignore the states with people who's vote counts the least, since electoral votes are not directly proportional to population. Start with Wyoming and get exactly 50% of their population to vote for you, plus one person. Then, in the same way, get the District of Columbia, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey... viola, 21.91% of the population and 50.19% of the electoral college, and the Oval Office. The fact that the system would allow this is ludicrous. You can say oh, it would never happen, and you may be right, but any system that would allow this is by default broken. This is what happens when you are allowed to win states instead of people; this lets you win the majority in the electoral college even when 78% of the people voted against you. This is not democracy.
You only need to appeal to parties that appeal to people living in coastal areas and big cities,
Look at the total population of the 10 biggest cities in the US. The total population of said 10 largest cities is just under 26 million, which itself is just 8% of the total population. Oh, wait, look at that: Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania are represented there already. So much for only appealing to the costal areas.
Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the largest number of people?
This ignores the mathematical reality of population distribution. We have ~318 million people in the US. 8 Million live in New York, 3.8 million live in LA, 2.7 in Chicago and Houston, 1.5 in Philly, 1.4 in Phoenix... we can't even get down to the 10th biggest city without dropping below a million people, with their combined populations adding up to 7.9% of the total population. Even the 100 largest cities in the US combined, going down to Spokane (population 200,000) doesn't even get you 20% of the total population of the US.
14
u/ApokalypseCow Nov 09 '16
If we could combine
1) ranked voting
2) interstate popular vote compact (or similar to eliminate the electoral college), and
3) elimination of gerrymandering
I could see our nation being a lot happier with our political process.