Slashdot Mirror

>"I can't blame someone who thinks other issues are more important. But we shouldn't have to make that choice in the first place."

Yet we always do, because we don't have much choice [in the USA]. There are actually only two parties (because of our horrible voting system). So the two take set stances on a whole sets of things, many of which most don't necessarily agree, so most voters are just SOL. We are forced to pick which issues are the most important- sometimes it might be only ONE issue, and all the other stuff we might not like comes along with the vote.

Currently, the only other option is voting "3rd party." And that almost always ensures you are not only "throwing away" your vote, but also ensures the party you LEAST agree with will benefit from that vote due to the very real spoiler effect.

The only solution is to have more parties so additional ones can form that more closely represent various positions and also help force the large/established parties to change and become more responsive. And that can only happen with some form of ranked voting system in the primaries and elections (like Instant Runoff Voting).

http://fairvote.org/

>"The only real fix is some sort of instant runoff voting system"

+1000

https://fairvote.org/

>"In the US, we call them, "Trump voters". "

Well, no. Please remember that perhaps the majority of "Trump voters" were voting against Hillary, not for Trump. In many ways, she was her worst enemy.

We need instant runoff voting in all primaries and all elections, desperately. https://fairvote.org/

Voting for Trump is basically the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

>"In the US, we call them, "Trump voters". "

Well, no. Please remember that perhaps the majority of "Trump voters" were voting against Hillary, not for Trump. In many ways, she was her worst enemy.

We need instant runoff voting in all primaries and all elections, desperately. https://fairvote.org/

Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.

I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.

It is possible that is true, but there certainly have been laws on the books in the US that are "faith based". Sunday shopping laws come to mind:

https://www.newyorker.com/busi...

When a politician says "I wish there was a law saying x-y-z", unless they immediately qualify the statement by saying "but I know that would be a bad law so I would never act to implement it" or something similar, I do think it is fair to worry that they might work to make it come to pass.

Yeah, I understand that statements on the campaign trail often come to naught, but to dismiss what a candidate says before the election seems stupid. If they say they want to do something stupid, immoral, or repugnant, maybe we shouldn't elect them, even if it seems unlikely that they would ever do that sort of thing.

Maybe if we had more ranked-choice ballots available, we would get better options and end up electing better candidates: https://www.fairvote.org/

>"How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song?"

+100

>"Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people."

Which people would that be?

The last MAJOR extension of copyright was the 1998 act signed by Bill Clinton (D) with an R congress (both houses). And before that was the MUCH more major 1976 act signed by Ford (R) with a D congress (both houses).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Not saying you are making a partisan accusation, but that is the climate nowadays. It seems likely that most politicians can be bought/pressured by the media giants, regardless of party (at least the two major ones), or time.

"Not voting for these people" is really pretty non-constructive because we have almost no choice to make. The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:

https://www.fairvote.org/

That is where I suggest people throw their energy/support if we really want meaningful choice, meaningful change, and meaningful power as voters. Otherwise we are just trapped voting against the one of the two that seems to suck the most or spoiling the vote by trying something different.

>"The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting"

Indeed it is. It is 100% the problem, and on every level of government elections. And we *CAN* fix it, although it won't be easy.

http://fairvote.org/

>"You refuse to vote for them because they are not viable, yet they are not viable because people like you refuse to vote for them. Ergo, you are the problem. It is silly to vote for what you don't want, and then complain when you get it."

The problem is the voting SYSTEM. It is the system that creates a two-party-only system and prevents any real change. So yes, most of us DO end up voting for what we don't want because it end up being the "lesser of two evils". We can't necessarily vote for who we want because that vote is thrown away and we end up essentially handing over power to the more of the two evils. And since it really is nearly impossible in any real election that matters to have more than a D and R count, the other parties either never produce compelling enough candidates or never form as a party to begin with... because.... what's the point?

Third-parties of ANY type almost always do more harm than good because of the spoiler effect. And it is really sad. We deserve better. We deserve more choice and competition. The only way this will ever change is to have some type of ranked choice voting system.

http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And it *is* possible to have such a change, since the handling of voting is primarily a State issue, so getting such a change pushed through is possible. It will be slow and difficult, but it has an almost 100% more likely chance to succeed than repeatedly throwing away votes on 3rd parties (at least in important elections).

I do not recall any Democrats complaining that Bill Clinton was illegitimate because he did not win a majority.

Your lack of recollection is your own problem, because Bill Clinton actually won a plurality, which Trump did not(another lie of his, to go with his lies about winning a majority of the popular vote), and for what it's worth there were Democrats who during the 1990s, supported the NPVIC.

Plus you know, a whole lot of wangsting over the Perot effect.

If leftists did not have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

If right-wingers bothered to have integrity, they wouldn't be able to rail at their enemies for their own offenses.

Remember how many Republicans screamed about Clinton's lack of legitimacy due to Perot's spoiler effect? Remember how Trump screaming for a revolution when he was informed over Obama's victory in 2012. Now apparently, the shoe is on the other foot.

Ooops, guess we won't have a Revolution, eh, Furious Loser of the Popular Vote?

Or we could just use Ranked Choice Voting.

>"But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?"

I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question might be "At what point will the nation seriously consider a new voting system, like ranked choice, that will make it possible for better candidates to gain traction and other parties to actually compete fairly?" Otherwise, we will continue to pretend that the current D and the current R are the only valid and rational choices. Most voting now is near meaningless because of where one geographically lives, and/or single-issue polarization, and/or voting for the "least worst", and/or horrible candidates on the only two tickets than can win because of the "first past the post" system we still use. The political spectrum is not, and should not, be a two point location on a single line that attempts to describe everything.

Since voting methods are controlled by the States (and hasn't yet been unconstitutionally taken over by the Fed, like so much already), meaningful voting method change actually COULD happen (which is the major reason for the 10th Amendment). It is making inroads in local governments all over the country and starting to pick up interest at State levels. It would have a huge positive impact in party primaries, too (regardless of which party). It doesn't matter what party you support or what your political positions are, IRV/AV/RC is good for EVERYONE.

http://fairvote.org/

>"That's not what libertarian means."

Nothing is really an absolute position, regardless of party. But, in a nut-shell, Libertarians believe in less government. That equates to things like:

1) Fewer regulations
2) Fewer laws
3) Less taxes
4) Less government spending
5) More personal freedom
6) More personal responsibility
7) More local control (less Federal)

Notice I didn't say "no" or "none" or "all" in the above. Just guiding principles. For some reason, on Slashdot, for many people, the word "Libertarian" immediately equates with extreme positions or just total anarchy, which is not only unfair, but actually pretty ridiculous. Libertarian is what used to be called "classic liberalism" which is pretty much on what the United States was founded. And it is what the Constitution supports and claims.

Ironically, I often hear people arguing positions that sound pretty much spot-on as Libertarian but from people claiming to be either Republican or Democrat.... but perhaps that is just due to our horrible two-party-only system that has formed from an even more horrible voting system (which REALLY needs to change if we want ANY real progress in this country... regardless of what party you think you are or what positions you hold dear).

http://fairvote.org/

>"I don't disagree. The problem is, any change to fix things will require changing laws, which has to be passed by Congress, which is filled with the two parties in power. So basically the political parties need to choose to make themselves less powerful, which they're not going to do."

Actually, that is not completely correct. The States are in charge of how voting is conducted for both State and Federal elections, not Congress. It is surely impossible to get Congress to make such a change. But it is less than impossible to get individual States to do it for themselves.... one already has (partially, at least, in Maine). Don't get me wrong, it would still be very difficult, because the two parties in State governments will fight it also, but at least there is a chance. It can start with localities, where it is quite possible. People will get used to it and see that it actually works and then start demanding it for State seat elections. Then, eventually, that will put pressure on the State to also do it for Federal elections.

http://www.fairvote.org/spotli...

>"Just to say it: I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually pretty conservative, but I increasingly have to argue in defense of "liberals" because Republicans have lost their goddamn minds. At this point, the Democratic party is the conservative party, and the Republican party has embraced radical and reckless policies. They seem content to burn the house down with themselves in it, just so long as Democrats get burned too"

I will say it too: I don't consider myself Democrat nor Republican, perhaps more semi-Libertarian than anything. I think both major parties are crazy and both want to burn down everything. The partisanship and polarization is just insane these days. Both parties seem content to Federalize everything, strip liberty and privacy, spew out endless legislation, and spend until the debt is uncountable. To me, both seem corrupt to the core.... far more concerned about their party and themselves than the country or the citizens.

We desperately need a new voting system in primaries and all elections that will allow for other parties to compete, thrive, and threaten the two major ones who have lost their way. For many of us, neither "main" party aligns well. We end up holding our noses and voting for what we think is the least bad or we are forced into single-issue voting which brings a lot of unwanted baggage with it.

http://fairvote.org/

>Democrats do not care about abuse of executive power or legislative branches. Unless they can use it to empower themselves and enrich their corporate friends.

I believe BOTH parties abuse executive power, and more specifically the "executive order." BOTH parties spend too much. BOTH parties enrich themselves. BOTH parties erode civil liberties (just differently) and trample the Constitution. Welcome to our two-party system!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If you want it to change, we have to get some type of ranking voting system in place. http://www.fairvote.org/

Computers would make this easier but are not required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting http://www.fairvote.org/rcv

I used to be big fan of ranked voting, especially with Condorcet evaluation with Schwarz Sequential Dropping. Then I tried to explain it to a few people and changed my mind. Instant-runoff is a little simpler, but still pretty complicated -- and actually a bit tricky to execute correctly since it's inherently multi-pass (Condorcet is simpler to execute). Simplicity matters because what's just as important as having a fair election, is having a fair election that voters can understand and trust.

I think the best scheme overall is approval voting. The mathematical properties of approval voting are almost as good as the best ranked voting schemes. It's a little more vulnerable to strategic voting (which is when voters might have reason to vote other than their true preferences, as is the norm in plurality-rules schemes), but really not very much. In theory it also doesn't capture quite as much nuance of voter intent since it doesn't allow one to express a preference between two acceptable candidates. But it does allow voters to express another important element of intent which ranked ballots don't allow: acceptability. And it's brain-dead simple to understand.

If you don't know how it works, here you go: An approval voting ballot has all of the candidates listed. You mark all of those that are acceptable to you. The candidate with the most marks wins.

Such a system eliminates the strong two-party bias that plurality-rules systems have (Duverger's Law, that bias is called). In very few cases does it ever make sense to vote other than your true preferences. And it encourages parties to field broadly-acceptable candidates.

Tallying is a single-pass process and counts can be provided by sub-regions for totalling (unlike IRV, where the runoff phases require reinterpretation of the ballots at each runoff). If it's desired, you can even specify a minimum win threshold -- if no candidate gets, say, 50% approval then no one wins and you re-run the election with a new slate of candidates. There's an obvious risk of never getting a winner here, so such a system should probably progressively lower the required approval level to be sure that someone eventually wins, but the flip side is that such a system would mean that the 2016 US presidential election would never have put either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on the ballot; both (all) parties would be looking for someone with broader appeal.

However, approval voting can be done with or without computers, so it's not really relevant here. IRV can also be done without computers, though it's kind of tedious without them.

I prefer multimember districts with cumulative voting like they had in Illinois up to 1982.

I agree. Something like this would be much preferred. The problem with districts is that even if you get rid of gerrymandering, if every district is an equal split 70% one party and 30% the other party then that second party never gets any representation. In some ways, slight gerrymandering is actually preferred over perfectly equal districts but something like all candidates voted for statewide and take the top N with the most votes would better represent the minority parties.

I prefer multimember districts with cumulative voting like they had in Illinois up to 1982.

I have been complaining for many years, ever since my State ditched the simple and effective "punch cards" and went to horrible touch-screen computer voting. It removed every trace of auditing capability and introduced a system that not only could be horribly abused or hacked, but also made it easy to track the identity of who voted- clearly violating the principles of confidentiality of voting.

Finally, this November, my State switched to paper ballots. The voter is registered as usual, then given a generic paper ballot, and just marks on the paper what they want, and the voter inserts it into a machine that reads it and stores the sheet of paper securely. Cheap, simple, easy-to-use, 100% verifiable, and anonymous. I only hope that every State follows such an example.

The next challenge is to get ranked/IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). Then things can really start to change for the positive.

http://fairvote.org/

+1 I was going to post the same thing.

Both candidates were poor. Many people voting for EITHER candidate were not happy with the candidate but held their nose and voted for the least worst. Some of it has nothing to do with the candidate, anyway. For example, if you value gun rights, voting for Hillary would be insane, no matter how much you hate Trump, the person.

And thus the problem with "first to the post" voting both in the primaries and the elections themselves. This could be mostly fixed with IRV http://fairvote.org/ so you can vote for candidates you like without fear of your vote counting for nothing. Alas, this will probably never happen.

has to relearn that politics is not a matter of black and white

We have an election system that not only promotes tribalism, it promotes a duality: you are either the majority party, the minority party, or a rounding error. Which party is the majority just rotates every 6-8 years. The last time a major party fell out or was replaced was over a century ago, and it's only been the makeup of each that has changed since.

This has been a problem for almost as long as this country has held elections. Parties formed shortly after the country did, States, with few exceptions, all moved to first-past-the-post, winner-take-all based on the popular vote for the Electoral College. Only now is ranked/preferential voting being applied on a wide level: Maine voted it in with this last election. I'd like to say that other states will follow their lead, but Maine (and Nebraska, odd bed-fellows) has had Congressional District Method for the EC for a few decades now but no other states have picked up on it.

In short, American politics is black and white because Americans in general don't care enough to make gray options viable (and the elite for both major parties are all too happy to stay mum on the ability to do so.) I feel the Founding Fathers could have done more to stunt or blunt this, our election system being one of their few major failures (and one of the even fewer that has gone uncorrected.)

Yes, it has happened before. http://www.fairvote.org/faithl...
Many times. Most recent mass (more than 1 elector) "not voting for people's will" was Republicans in 1912 because of death of VP candidate.

That's not the only time, nor the only reason. Ten seconds of google really. You might want to look stuff up like that before "just asking questions"

In this fashion you will essentially have a popular vote, quantized in a funny way. Giving these small states 3 electoral votes and winner-take-all gives them more power than they would have had otherwise.

It doesn't have to be a strict proportional allocation. States can choose how to allocate their EC vote, and I don't think that many would have a problem with, say, Wyoming sticks with winner-takes-all.

Maine and Nebraska, the only two states that have eschewed winner-takes-all (odd bed-fellows), use a Congressional District Method. Briefly: the state overall popular-vote winner gets 2 votes, and then the popular-vote winner of each congressional district gets an EC vote. Because these are fairly homogenous states it usually still works out to a single candidate getting every vote, but a candidate still has to work for votes in each district (rather than focusing entirely on one or two major cities.) For enormous states like California and Texas, however, you'd get far better representation at the Electoral College level, where one party doesn't steamroll by virtue of 51% popular vote (or, egads, a third party might get an EC vote?!)

In fact, since Wyoming has only one congressional district, they could adopt this method of allocation without actually affecting future results. Small (population) states like that would be an excellent place to start campaigning for such a change, because nothing actually changes for the state but you bring about peer pressure and they get to say "Look at us, we're so smart, we did the thing!"

States aren't locked into using that particular method if they get rid of winner-takes-all, but for reasons you list it seems like a good one to work with.

would feel better if it were the actual law that they had to (in all states)

More than a few states have a "trust break" law on the books for EC representatives that go against the state's popular-vote results. I think there's even been a Supreme Court case regarding them (and the SC said that it was the state's prerogative to create those laws, so they held.)

> Its not like there were any other candidates on the ballot or anything...

Correct, there really never are. Since we have a first-past-the-post system, it is almost impossible for a candidate in any major election to win that is not one of the two-party system. Anyone that thinks that those others are actual choices are deluding themselves. All it usually does when voting for those is to just take a vote away from the major candidate most close to what you wanted, helping to ensure who gets elected is even LESS likely to be who you want.

http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.

http://fairvote.org/

I do like the Instant Runoff Vote that fairvote.org is championing. I see that Maine just apporved via a ballot measure for "Ranked Choice Voting" to be used to elect U.S. senators, U.S. representatives, the governor, state senators, and state representatives,

https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_...

Maine already splits its EC votes rather than sending them as a block to the sate-wide winner.

No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.

http://fairvote.org/

I like "Instant Runoff Voting" too. It looks like Maine passed a ballot inniative that will give them "Ranked Choice Voting" in future elections starting in 2018. Not for president, but for "U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative".

https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_...

Yes, the electoral college should be abolished, but not because of this election (get over it). It needs to go because it is stupid and really serves no purpose. But more importantly, what we need is to abolish this ridiculous system that creates just two possible candidates (especially two candidates like we just ended up with). We need instant runoff voting just as badly- if fact, even worse. Right now other parties can pretty much NEVER get elected in any important campaigns; votes for them simply split the vote of whichever major party/parties they most resemble. People are TOO AFRAID to vote for who they want, they are forced to vote against who they most fear. IRV will fix that once and for all- and for all levels of government. People would be able to RANK candidates how they like, knowing their vote is never wasted or thrown away.

It is impossible to represent what the people might want with just two views and the primaries don't fix it either because they have the exact same problem with the lack of IRV.

Nothing is as simple as "left" or "right". Many, many, many millions of voters have views that simply can't be described in two dimensions... it is like trying to describe airplane motion as "left or right" while ignoring up, down, forward, backward, speed, and roll.

No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.

http://fairvote.org/

>"I hate a lot of the current candidates policies I like some of them but not one closely reflects my views. This is the best we could do?"

With a first-past-the-poll voting system and the electoral college, yes, that is the best we can do. It has been in the making for a long time. The only way to get real choice is to get rid of the EC and institute SOME type of instant runoff voting. Alas, it will likely never happen at this point. So we are trapped.

http://fairvote.org/

Do more than dream: get off your ass and start petitioning your representatives in your state legislature to introduce legislation or a state constitutional amendment to change the way your state counts the votes for elector appointments.

Yeah, I could do more.

Here is an advocacy group for voting reform with info about ranked choice voting in the USA:

http://www.fairvote.org/rcv_in...

>"Vote for the Libertarian and the Greens and get a proper debate going for once"

If only that would work..... But it won't. We can't ever elect a third party in a major race because of our broken system. To fix it would would at least need some type of instant runoff voting system http://fairvote.org/

Even getting third parties into a debate is extremely difficult.

>"As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win"

This. +1

Our system makes it essentially IMPOSSIBLE for any non Republicrat to win in major elections. Until we change the voting system to something *SANE* that allows voters to RANK the candidates, we can't really change anything else. We end up voting AGAINST the major party we don't like instead of FOR the party we might want.

Imagine what would be possible if voters this year had the ability to RANK candidates from all the parties. People could rank some other party first with ZERO fear they are throwing their votes away. The outcome might be shocking.... especially if we knew we could do this a long time ago and drummed up more candidates.

http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>"You'd think that as exasperated as a large portion of the American people seem to be with the Rep/Dem duopoly that they'd set up alternative political parties."

We already do. The Libertarian party is a good example. But it doesn't matter because our stupid voting system makes it nearly impossible for any third-party to ever win any important election.

http://fairvote.org/

>You know there's a Libertarian candidate running right?

Yes, but it doesn't matter because it is nearly impossible from a third party to win in our stupid plurality voting system. What we need is IRL to fix that: http://fairvote.org/

Unfortunately, it will never happen.

Perhaps that is exactly WHY people want to vote for him, voters are beyond tired of the status-quo, politics-as-usual, cookie-cutter politicians, and party hard-liners. They are looking for someone to shake up things.

Is it risky? Perhaps. But without risk, there can be no real gain, either.

I think Trump is a mess. But we will be offered only two choices come November, so look at the other choice. Yeesh. The bigger problem is that we desperately need to reform the election process and bring in IRV http://fairvote.org/ but we live in the here-and-now.

Just about everyone I know, including myself, want better choices.... but that time is over now. And even if it seems reckless to vote for Trump, remember that 1) it is only the President (Congress has just as much power) 2) it is only for 4 years 3) we have a set of checks-and-balances.

As for Hawking? I have a great deal of respect for him as a scientist and physicist.... but he should stick to what he knows. America is not his country and his field is not politics, economics, sociology, or management.

>"I still think a third party is the answer"

No, it is not the answer. Because no third party ever has any real chance of winning important elections. It is essentially impossible because of the way the system is designed.

The answer is to get rid of the electoral college and change the voting system. Only then can people vote how they want and only then will there be real alternatives to the "rupublicrats".

http://www.fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://fairvote.org/

>"which results in victory for an unexpected third-party candidate.

What a silly fantasy plot to even think of something so impossible with our unfair voting system. Now, if the plot ALSO says we finally switched to some form of instant runoff voting, then it might be possible to have a third-party win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.fairvote.org/

Mandatory voting is a hugely bad idea:

1) It goes against freedom

Living in a Democracy comes with some responsibilities, mandatory voting is one I'm comfortable with (you can still cast a protest vote/spoil a ballot).

2) It encourages people to vote who have no idea (or less idea) what the issues are. This brings poorer choices and dilutes the votes of those who DO know what the issues are.

The people who come out to vote now aren't informed as much as they are rabid partisans. Get everyone involved and the knowledge will tick up.

3) It encourages people to vote who apparently have no interest in the issues.

That's a wonderful idea. The last person I want voting is rabid partisans who thinks their candidate losing means the end of the world. You know why McCain chose Palin? Because they figured she could motivate the base. She did that brilliantly but it really took a staggering amount of extremism and incompetence on her part to become a hindrance to the campaign. In a mandatory system you'd never let a representative like her anywhere near the campaign.

What we desperately need is the introduction of some form of preferential voting like instant runoff voting (and possibly the end of the electoral college). THAT would make a HUGE and PRODUCTIVE change in ways that really matter. We could then be free of being locked into a two-party race where both parties essentially suck. People could vote for who they want without fear they are throwing their vote away or fear of allowing someone they don't like getting elected because they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.fairvote.org/reform...

I think that would be cool but I don't think it's the cause of your voting woes. A preferential system inserted into the current US system would simply mean more chaos and an electorate who has no idea who's doing what.

Mandatory voting is a hugely bad idea:

1) It goes against freedom
2) It encourages people to vote who have no idea (or less idea) what the issues are. This brings poorer choices and dilutes the votes of those who DO know what the issues are.
3) It encourages people to vote who apparently have no interest in the issues.

What we desperately need is the introduction of some form of preferential voting like instant runoff voting (and possibly the end of the electoral college). THAT would make a HUGE and PRODUCTIVE change in ways that really matter. We could then be free of being locked into a two-party race where both parties essentially suck. People could vote for who they want without fear they are throwing their vote away or fear of allowing someone they don't like getting elected because they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.fairvote.org/reform...

> "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections.

Duh. That is why NOTHING is going to change until we have preferential voting, such as instant runoff. Then people can vote their conscience and get new blood into power (independents, libertarians, other parties, etc) without fear of a party opposite of their view being unopposed. Otherwise it is just business as usual.

http://www.fairvote.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

But why should Joe the Democrat have any input at all into which candidate the Republican party chooses to run under their banner?

Each State has its own rules about primary elections.
In some cases, the State gives each political party the power to decide who can vote in its primary.

Virginia law dictates open primaries, which is why Joe Democrat can vote in the Republican Primary.

 24.2-530. Who may vote in primary.

All persons qualified to vote, pursuant to ÂÂ 24.2-400 through 24.2-403, may vote at the primary. No person shall vote for the candidates of more than one party.

So? Let's say you voted to not be heard instead? What are you going to do instead? Right now the most realistic battle is to fix house elections with automatically drawn superdistricts implemented through state referendums. Complaining about the fact that it's hard to elect an "independent" (no one independent gets anywhere, some just have smaller dependencies) into a single person position isn't just pointless, it's not even wrong! All you can do is do the least damage there, period. You can either pick your battles or yearn for a magical place where political realities will go away due to being righteously ignored. The system has plenty of leverage, it's just being thrown away on shit like making gay marriage unconstitutional in North Carolina and irrelevant crap in California.

Imagine the message sent to both parties if Stein, or Johnson handed Obama a loss.

You mean like when Nader handed Gore a loss in 2000?

The lesson the Republicans learned was "we have a mandate" and proceeded to pursue a decade of self-destructive jingoistic policy they still haven't recovered from. The lesson the Democrats learned was "don't get Nadered again."

You must be young - Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton in '92 and '96.

The race would have been closer, but the analysis I've usually seen indicates that Perot pulled pretty equally from both parties, so it would have simply been a slim victory for Clinton, particularly in Electoral College numbers (several states switched back, but still not enough for Bush to win). For example, this looks like a good write-up.

I will agree that it did lead to some of the fastest bi-partisan changes ever seen, though, shoring up the election rules to reduce the chances of having a similar third-party candidate ever again. It's too bad, I was hoping the Republican's treatment of Ron Paul and the Libertarian-faction within their party would have led to a larger defection to Johnson during this election, possibly gaining him enough to at least hit the debate floor.

the basic rule that a lower ranked vote for a candidate should never hurt your higher ranked choices makes it preferable, to me, than approval or a "true" condorcet method.

IRV is break-able... all electoral systems are. but it's much, much less breakable than 1 person 1 vote. and it allows a voter to express an actual preference.

a place to read up on this stuff is here: http://www.fairvote.org/

It is so incredibly sad that we don't have some type of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). If we wanted real change, this is the only way to get it because it is the only way to have a real possibility of electing someone other than a Republicrat (or a Demolican).

Imagine a system where your vote actually counted, no matter who you vote for... I guess I can dream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

I found this: http://archive.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/ia.htm

Looks fairly griddy. ;-)

The funny thing about your statement is, there are grassroots and smaller parties who would fit 80 percent of Americans more than the Republicans or Democrats do but they seem to be totally unaware of it.

Time for a history lesson...

In a first past the post two parties will always dominate. Doesn't matter what names or their policies are, but a 3rd party always has math against it.

Oddly enough the two oldest democracies that are still around today went with FFP because voting had never really been tried before (UK and the USA) while the more newer ones have gone with other forms such as proportional representation (like Germany and Israel). This was that as new countries were being formed or overthrowing their old monarchies, they realized that the FFP was flawed in someways as they could see how it was in the countries that had it (usually looking at the UK) and being more modern times (1890 through 1950s) they went with PR, IRV or STV (single transferable vote) in which 3rd parties get a greater voice in government and the change of a 3rd party actually becoming a 1st or 2nd party is greater (like the German Greens or the Israeli lukid).

So if you want change... Real change with 3rd parties, you need to change the constitution. Of course the vested parties won't really be too keen on that but from my understanding a few states passed STV last year in some local elections so you'll start seeing 3rd parties on grassroots levels in some places.

For more info: http://www.fairvote.org/

Oh and I almost forgot to plug Fairvote.org which promotes NPV (National Popular Vote as opposed to electoral vote) and IRV (instant runoff vote) reforms which both would help 3rd party cannidates.

Surprisingly enough I believe several states are experimenting with IRV this election (read more in the fair vote page) and NPV is getting traction in some state governments so that its not just about Ohio and Florida and that your vote will matter in a presidential campaign.

Really, we need electoral form on all levels so if you are aware of it and talk about it to other people the more likely it will put as a major issue to the national level.

Then we can start having more serious 3rd parties.

Write to your state legislature and request preferential voting ballots. The plurality system we have today causes people to vote for one of two candidates that is most likely to win and offends them the least. With preferential voting you can truly vote your conscience without "robbing" your second- or third-ranked candidate of a vote. Some states already have this; see:

http://instantrunoff.com/
http://www.fairvote.org/

Seems to be that the system was expensive and might have been too democratic.
"Black Representation Under Cumulative Voting in IL"
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=419
Did careerism also play a part?