Fix the two-party system with proportional representation(agrarianparty.org)
agrarianparty.org
Fix the two-party system with proportional representation
https://agrarianparty.org/platform/peoples-act
22 comments
"We" is going a long way here. I have yet to meet someone in rural Minnesota that is aware of this problem, and that there are alternative solutions like this one.
But to your main point: the will is not in publishing this, but in spending every day winning hearts and minds in small town bars and community centers. I could certainly use some help.
But to your main point: the will is not in publishing this, but in spending every day winning hearts and minds in small town bars and community centers. I could certainly use some help.
I would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.
FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) pushes toward a two party system. When you switch to RC (Ranked Choice aka. Ranked Ballot or Ranked Voting) or even PR, that push is relaxed and you are likely to start seeing more parties.
The problem with Ranked Choice with more than two parties is that the centrist parties tend to win more often because they are more likely to be the second choice of people whose first choice is a left or right leaning party. That can be a problem if they get 100% of the power when they win.
PR is better because how much power each party has depends on what percentage of the votes they get in the first round (there not being subsequent rounds), so it is unlikely they will get 100% of the power and everyone's vote counts because it increases the power of the party they voted for.
With Ranked Choice, you may end up getting your second or third choice instead and your first choice then has little to no power.
Most of the democracies in the world today use PR (at least 2/3rds) instead of FPTP (about 1/3rd). Ranked Choice is less common.
The problem with Ranked Choice with more than two parties is that the centrist parties tend to win more often because they are more likely to be the second choice of people whose first choice is a left or right leaning party. That can be a problem if they get 100% of the power when they win.
PR is better because how much power each party has depends on what percentage of the votes they get in the first round (there not being subsequent rounds), so it is unlikely they will get 100% of the power and everyone's vote counts because it increases the power of the party they voted for.
With Ranked Choice, you may end up getting your second or third choice instead and your first choice then has little to no power.
Most of the democracies in the world today use PR (at least 2/3rds) instead of FPTP (about 1/3rd). Ranked Choice is less common.
Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.
Interesting, I wonder how many invisible third parties exist at the state or regional level that would be represented in a better system.
That being said, this state government seems rather large for Minnesota, a state with a population of six million people. 67 senators and 134 representatives, and that's within the clunky three-branch system of government copied from the US Federal Government. Those numbers are bigger than California's which has a population that is five times larger.
That being said, this state government seems rather large for Minnesota, a state with a population of six million people. 67 senators and 134 representatives, and that's within the clunky three-branch system of government copied from the US Federal Government. Those numbers are bigger than California's which has a population that is five times larger.
We're at about one legislature for every 30k people. It was one per 20k in 1973, one per 12k in 1919, one per 6k in 1889, and less than one in 2k when Minnesota was a territory in 1858.
I'm not sure what the right ratio is, but the level of disenfranchisement is palpable.
I'm not sure what the right ratio is, but the level of disenfranchisement is palpable.
Here in Argentina, we have a proportional system inside each province. At the national level we have an indefinite number of parties, but as a simplification, we have
* the 2 extremes: far-right, far-left
* the 2 biggest one: Milei and Cristina
* Like 3 small/medium in the middle
So you can select something in between. They work as informal alliances, so the parties in the middle most of the time align with one of the big ones, but they may switch in particular cases.
It makes it harder for the big parties to do very stupid things, but they can manage to do stupid things anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* the 2 extremes: far-right, far-left
* the 2 biggest one: Milei and Cristina
* Like 3 small/medium in the middle
So you can select something in between. They work as informal alliances, so the parties in the middle most of the time align with one of the big ones, but they may switch in particular cases.
It makes it harder for the big parties to do very stupid things, but they can manage to do stupid things anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My pet theory is that everything is fine the way it is. For example, looking at the first table, if those 260 democrat voters voted for what they wanted instead of against what they didn't want, they might get split up into, say, 160 democrat and 100 agrarian. The outcome is still the same (republican wins) so it doesn't hurt anything, but it tells the democrat party that to win those voters back next time, they should take on some of the agrarian policies that those voters want. If they win on that, then voters get what they want just with a different brand name (democrat instead of agrarian).
My concept is that the whole idea of two-parties-bad appeals to people who are more interested in parties than policies. I don't think it matters what the name of the party is if they have the same policies.
My concept is that the whole idea of two-parties-bad appeals to people who are more interested in parties than policies. I don't think it matters what the name of the party is if they have the same policies.
Ranked Choice Voting has a much better chance of happening at a wide scale than this proposal, and even then it will be an uphill road.
This post is an interesting mathematical exercise, but RCV actually has the potential to succeed.
This post is an interesting mathematical exercise, but RCV actually has the potential to succeed.
RCV was rejected in many locales in the last election.
Those who currently hold the majority don't want any ranked choice that might undermine their position. Worse, since there are only two parties, the other side is very often seen as deranged, corrupt, and evil, that should be kept away from power with any means short of a nuclear strike.
Only when there is a sizable number of disgruntled voters who are unhappy with both the red and the blue, and would vote for specific decent people, not party affiliation, then RCV has a fir chance of being adopted, I assume.
Only when there is a sizable number of disgruntled voters who are unhappy with both the red and the blue, and would vote for specific decent people, not party affiliation, then RCV has a fir chance of being adopted, I assume.
I'm not sure of the degree to which the two party system is a problem for state legislatures. It's an obvious problem at the federal level, but you do still stand a chance of knowing your local legislator to the state. When the constituents and representatives are just abstractions to each other, of course a party comes in to act as a middle layer.
But I do like the idea of list systems. Geographic districts are an artifact of slow communications, which don't exist any more. My neighbors and I have fewer overlapping interests than they did in the past.
But I do like the idea of list systems. Geographic districts are an artifact of slow communications, which don't exist any more. My neighbors and I have fewer overlapping interests than they did in the past.
I think the number of representatives per election district is a really interesting mathematical/social problem in democracy, and I’m interested in what this audience has to say.
[deleted]
Will this result in more polarizing candidates since the party is determining who is elected instead of electing a specific person?
It could, but under the current system, candidates who are affiliated with major parties (i.e., essentially everyone who ends up winning an election) already need to win the support of their party, and the process for this is generally opaque and largely controlled by often less-moderate insiders
Also, having viable third party choices puts more pressure on larger parties to field more widely palatable candidates, or risk losing their majorities
Also, having viable third party choices puts more pressure on larger parties to field more widely palatable candidates, or risk losing their majorities
I just think that seeing the current gerrymandered districts where I live and the crazy people who come out of the party, I would rather voters choose individuals than parties.
If someone doesn’t tow the party line, the party would immediately replace them the next year and this would give parties even more power.
If someone doesn’t tow the party line, the party would immediately replace them the next year and this would give parties even more power.
[deleted]
Make more parties.
We don’t need more ideas, we need the political will to try one. And that is the real problem.