I will leave the question of how the 2 year primary system could throw up such unsavory candidates for POTUS to somebody who knows more about these things. I was just wondering about the voting system in the elections themselves.
It seems that just as the "first past the post" voting system kept Maggie Thatcher in power long past her use by date, it has also been Donald Trump's friend.
I have observed that in countries where some sort of proportional representation is in effect, disaffected voters are free to elect a minority candidate. Such candidates can be a thorn in the side of the ruling party but other than getting some minor concessions, they usually don't cause too much harm. It's a legitimate method of getting the leaders to pay attention.
OTOH, in countries that use FPTP, a protest vote is simply a wasted vote. As a result, such systems invariably end up as two party systems. Voters have to employ strategic voting if they wish to limit the power of the ruling party. For example, they might vote Clinton for POTUS and Republican for congress. I suspect that dissatisfaction with US politicians has been building up for a while. When a bona fide protest candidate ran for POTUS, many took advantage of their once in a lifetime opportunity to lodge a protest vote that counted.
How could it have been different? Well neither Clinton nor Trump gained an absolute majority of the vote and that means the they didn't gain an absolute majority in many states either. Had a preferential voting system been in place for the presidential election, the result in a number of states may well have gone the other way (since those not voting Trump would likely have placed him last on the ballot paper). There would not be a need for an electoral college either. If a state gave its votes to a third party minority candidate then that candidate would be eliminated and their preferences allocated.
There is not much that can be done about the Senate since each state elects one Senator at a time. However, the gerrymander that exists in the House of Representatives could be eliminated by adopting a MMP system in each state. This would give disaffected voters (at least in the larger states) an opportunity to elect some minority candidates without upsetting the office of the president.
It seems that just as the "first past the post" voting system kept Maggie Thatcher in power long past her use by date, it has also been Donald Trump's friend.
I have observed that in countries where some sort of proportional representation is in effect, disaffected voters are free to elect a minority candidate. Such candidates can be a thorn in the side of the ruling party but other than getting some minor concessions, they usually don't cause too much harm. It's a legitimate method of getting the leaders to pay attention.
OTOH, in countries that use FPTP, a protest vote is simply a wasted vote. As a result, such systems invariably end up as two party systems. Voters have to employ strategic voting if they wish to limit the power of the ruling party. For example, they might vote Clinton for POTUS and Republican for congress. I suspect that dissatisfaction with US politicians has been building up for a while. When a bona fide protest candidate ran for POTUS, many took advantage of their once in a lifetime opportunity to lodge a protest vote that counted.
How could it have been different? Well neither Clinton nor Trump gained an absolute majority of the vote and that means the they didn't gain an absolute majority in many states either. Had a preferential voting system been in place for the presidential election, the result in a number of states may well have gone the other way (since those not voting Trump would likely have placed him last on the ballot paper). There would not be a need for an electoral college either. If a state gave its votes to a third party minority candidate then that candidate would be eliminated and their preferences allocated.
There is not much that can be done about the Senate since each state elects one Senator at a time. However, the gerrymander that exists in the House of Representatives could be eliminated by adopting a MMP system in each state. This would give disaffected voters (at least in the larger states) an opportunity to elect some minority candidates without upsetting the office of the president.
via International Skeptics Forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313807&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire