Summations Only

No, it is not a trick question and yes, the replacements would likely be very much like what is there now.The problem is the electorate.Our Representatives simply reflect the voters.

I'm sorry but sometimes the bullshit you post is simply too funny for words but I'll admit I do get a hearty laugh from your contributions.

quote:

---

It's always been the purpose of the Senate to pervert the notion of democracy.

---

Too funny.The founding fathers were of course terrified, and rightly so, of the idea of a Democracy, which is why they created the limits they did on government.Yes, the Senate was meant as one way of preventing the possibility of a pure Democracy.And yes, the idea of "one man one vote" would have seemed crazy to them.And in case you have missed it, I have mentioned several times in this thread that Amending the current Constitution is one method of change.

There are several other ways that voting itself could be managed, for example by allowing weighted voting, where each voter is given a set number of votes that could be spread over one or multiple candidates; or where the voter selects a first, second and third choice for an office which is then totaled.

In the first example, the voter could spread his votes over one or more candidates, for example if the voter felt really strongly about one candidate he could give all 5 (or what ever number) for one person or one each for five people or two for one person and three for a second.Votes for a candidate would get totaled individually.In the later system, totally is done on a weighted scale, a candidate would get 3 points for a first choice vote, 2 points for each second choice vote and 1 point for each third choice vote.When there are two (or more) very strong candidates they would tend to cancel each other out but a candidate who ranks high as a second or third choice across the board would score well.

To you, probably not.But it would open the way for multiple parties and increase the chance of changing representation.But the basic problem is still an uneducated electorate and as I have said, that cannot be solved quickly.

Yes, and I imagine that with the uneducated electorate in the US that many would think just like you. Except the more radical candidate is far more likely to be a second or third choice than the middle of the road candidate.The issue as I have mentioned before is the electorate.We have voters in the US today that vote as though they were under a Parliamentary system, they just pull the vote red or vote blue lever. We have voters that vote based on campaign ads. Mostly though, we have citizens that do not vote.My hope is that changing things which can be done without modification of the Constitution might, and I stress might, lead to a multi party state.

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.

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".

The politicians were all elected were they not?

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.

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.

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.

Yes, eventually someone would get elected.

No, read what I write; one person that everyone can live with. Consensus does not require that the person be a favorite, or even desirable, simply that it is someone who everyone can live with.

Yes, one person could veto all the other votes.Building consensus works that way, it is not free from tension, free from conflict, is often messy and almost always very slow.In the ideal system that one veto stops the process and it is halted until a solution can be found that the person holding the veto finally says "I can live with that".