Summations Only

Actually, other than is small groups where it is possible to build consensus I don't think pure democracy has been tried. The French for awhile right after the Revolution came close and the Soviet Union before Stalin also came close; I'm sure there are other examples but can't think of any off the top of my head.Most laws that protect rights are not really passed as a sign of the will of the people. For example, the Civil Rights movement was very unpopular and had it been subject to direct vote, it would never have happened.No, I do not believe that our politicians are saving us from ourselves, in fact I think I have mentioned several times in this thread that our politicians simply reflect the electorate.In the US today we can see that in action where there is a very popular movement to remove almost all the protections that have been gained during the last half century.

Well, provide me with a counter-example. Suppose that I have a personal ranking for my candidates. Suppose that I either do, or do not, have some idea what the rest of the electorate thinks. Under what circumstances would it be rational for me to split my five votes between more than one candidate? But in that case he'd be the second choice of some middle-of-the-roaders, the ones who are closer to him than the other extreme. We're not going to get a situation where (for example) some people prefer the right-winger, some people prefer the centrist, but everyone has the lefty as their second choice, are we?

It should be irrelevant what the rest of the electorate thinks when determining your vote, but in today's media driven system that seems unlikely.If you actually do have a personal ranking of the candidates then I would think that the rational way to vote would be to reflect that ranking. I don't know. I do think that a big part of the problem though is that there are "righties and lefties".

Oh, go fuck yourself, jar. Petulant as always. Would it? You may get a three-party system, but it's worth pointing out that what always happens in stable multiple-party equilibria is that the parties align into two major coalitions; usually liberal vs conservative.Breaking the American two-party system so that we can have a system of two coalitions instead seems like a solution in search of a problem. Or by changing the voting system, yes? So again, I'm left wondering what problem you think your voting system solves. Maybe you could try to be less petulant and dismissive and try to answer the question. Pretend you're talking to someone else, if it helps.

Well, right. And that's completely rational, because under a system that proceeds only by consensus-building, party affiliation matters a lot more than individual ideology. Voting for a candidate's party is a much more reliable guide to future outcomes than voting according to their expressed preference.I mean, look at the President. Obama campaigned on public option health care and against the mandate; once in office, the American Care Act had a private insurance mandate instead of a public option because the position of the Democratic party was for mandates and against the public option. The explanation for this is simple, and it isn't "Obama is a liar liar pants-on-fire"; it's that a President can only move legislation forward by consensus of Congress, and the consensus overwhelmingly preferred to handle American health care needs via private insurers.Regardless of what voting system is used, when parties strongly track ideological lines (as they do now) it makes more sense to vote for party than to vote for politicians. And, frankly, parties of strong competing ideology is a good thing. In an election where the choice is between some number of centrists, of arbitrary party affiliation, elections don't matter. It's Kang vs. Kodos and the only choice is what color tie. Elections shouldn't be the American people's chance to select personalities, it should be their chance to select from two competing ideologies about how American should be governed. Jar's stuck, deeply stuck, in a personality-based paradigm.

I don't beleive that is true. The us population is far left to what the government does in our name. Off the top of my head, military spending and health care are two examples that are not congruent.I would like to submit the Ben and Jerry's Oreo Budget test to each of the forum's participants and then average the results somehow. I'd bet it would quickly show how far off the government is to the population's wants. Perhaps even ol' racist Buzz would be surprised how "socialist" he really is when compared to reality.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kXPTwIO08(I know, I know, the video is dated and does not reflect current budgets. I am searching the web for a possible current version, but really, this should suffice)Edited by dronester, : I know, I know, the video is dated and does not reflect 2011-2012 budgets.

The politicians were all elected were they not?

I think some smart guy once said; (Additionally, keep this in mind, for presidential elections, about HALF the american population votes. Pathetic. For other elections, it is MUCH, MUCH smaller. Much much pathetic. Without active and thoughtful participants, democracy is a pipe-dream.Also, election day on a tuesday helps the turnout rate stay low, that generally helps keep the poor from participating and registering their wants which just helps allow the government to do as it wants.Also also, the corporate media helps hide politician's real intents/policies/political history, thereby easily bamboozling the lazy and thoughtless american public.) Yep, yep.Edited by dronester, : clarity

Any evidence for this? I haven't studied it deeply or anything, so can't offer you any numerical data, but this doesn't match a lot of the practical examples I can think of.Since the sixties, Germany alternated between governments of the major left and right wing parties both in coalition with the same centrist party, not two opposing coalitions that switched party. This system was broken with the rise of the Green party, which gave the Social Democrats an alternative choice for coalition partner, and then that government was followed by a grand coalition between the two major parties without the involvement of smaller parties.The Dutch government in my lifetime has gone from a coalition between CHristian Democrats and liberals, to a grand coalition between Christian Democrats and the centre left, to a left-liberal coalition, to another centre-right alliance of Christian Democrats and liberals together with the nationalists, then without the nationalists, then another Christian-socialist coalition and now once more a Christian-liberal coalition with the support of the nationalists.Here in the Czech Republic governments alternated between the centre-right and centre-left parties; both usually supported by the Christian Democrats; until this was replaced with a caretaker government involving the cooperation of everyone but the Communists, and now a new, fragile centre-right coalition after the collapse of the Christian party.I'm not going to go on and list every European government, but, at least in the ones I know about, stable coalitions between parties of the centre-left and parties of the centre-right don't seem all that common. Not every country is Italy.

But remember, the electorate enabled those problems to return; it was the electorate that supported media consolidation, removed the Fairness Doctrine, allowed the appointment of Supreme Court Justices that decided to allow "Corporate Citizens Political Support", defund Public Radio and Television and many other safeguards.

Way to miss my point. Also, it wouldn't be irrelevant under your proposal.Look, let's think it through. Suppose I don't know what everyone else thinks, and I have a preferred candidate. Then I should spend all my five votes on him. Because if I squander even one of my five votes on my second favorite candidate, and as a result my least favorite candidate beats my favorite candidate by one vote, then that would be bad.Alternatively, let's suppose that I have some way of gauging the mood of the electorate. I find that my favorite candidate has no hope, but that my second favorite candidate has a good chance of beating my least favorite candidate. Then I would put all my votes towards my second favorite candidate (rather him than my least favorite candidate). To squander even one of my five votes on my favorite candidate might shut my second favorite candidate out and hand the election to the guy I hate the most.So the thing is with your proposal that I can't think up any circumstances under which I would really want to split my votes. Maybe, perhaps, if everyone I wanted to vote for was a lost cause and I wished to make a protest vote for more than one person. But if I wish to influence the outcome of the election, then I should certainly cast all five of my votes for the same person. Well, that was just an example. Consider this one. We have an election.70% have preferences: Alice > Bob > Charlie > Duncan
30% have preferences: Bob > Charlie > Duncan > Alice70% of people prefer Alice to Bob. But according to your system Bob has just been elected.Is this a good idea?

Again, it's really fun making up examples, isn't it.But the idea of developing a consensus is finding what everyone can live with.The ideal system would include an absolute veto vote as well, where if anyone said I simply cannot live with candidate X being elected, then that person could not be elected.The goal of what I propose is to move away from majority rule towards consensus.

Perhaps, but please remember, the electorate that you speak of is far less than 50% of the voting public. Hardly a mandate from the people.

"Politics" in the US is something like a sport. I have my "team" and you have yours.It's gotten to the point that few actually think about why they support this issue or that - if the issue is supported by their "team," then they support it. You choose your "team" based on a couple hot-button issues like abortion, or undefined loose "ideals" like "fiscal conservatism" that may or may not actually be shared by the "team" you pick, because their marketing is that good. After that, the "team" decides what you support for you.American voters are soccer hooligans.The remaining, non-voting public just doesn't like soccer. Mostly because of the hooligans, but also because neither "team" particularly appeals to them, and the alternative "teams" always lose anyway.I hate American politics. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Again, that simply reflects the education and thinking tools of the electorate. The electorate includes even those who choose not to vote. Those who chose that path enabled those who voted to elect representatives that removed those safeguards.