Voters’ Party
-
I was just thinking the other day that a good way to accelerate voting reform in the U.S. might be to actually form a political party with voting system reform as the central platform.
Obviously that’s a very ambitious and challenging task, and a bit abhorrent. But I think it’s something that might need to happen at some point if any major changes are going to actually go through. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me for it to happen through the existing dominant parties. Or maybe some already existing third party could be persuaded to adopt that platform as one of its central tenets.
I don’t doubt that many people here have things to say about this topic. Just wanted to start a discussion about it.
score-stratified-condorcet [10] cardinal-condorcet [9] ranked-condorcet [8] score [7] approval [6] ranked-bucklin [5] star [4] ranked-irv [3] ranked-borda [2] for-against [1] distribute [0] choose-one [0]
-
Two places to look (unrelated to one another (so far)):
The second link requires admission, but admission will probably be forthcoming. This is United People's Assembly, a group of people still debating what formal mandate to take on, but I think the general opinion is in favor of parties in every State, forming a new one and/or working with existing ones, plus in one sense or another a national organization to help make all that work together. The national organization could qualify as a party under FEC rules after sufficient count of State parties agree to make coalition at the national level. Much of the spearheading is coming from Washington (the State, not DC).
In regard to the Green Party of the USA, I have experience that convinces me they are stuck on IRV and laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong with it.
-
@jack-waugh that makes sense, thanks for the info. IRV folks are for sure misinformed… pretty unfortunate.
-
@cfrank I anticipate that voting reforms will have to begin at local levels of government before it will become practical to use them at higher levels. However, depending on where you live, municipal elections might be nonpartisan, so forming an official political party might not serve much purpose. If municipal elections in your area are partisan, though, it might be difficult to establish credibility on the other issues of the area that people are concerned about. However, I think local politicians are more likely to actually listen to your opinions than, say, federal officials, so I wouldn't make the assumption that you will not be able to work with members of local government. Of course, some officials will be better than others. (You could also talk to possible challengers and see if you can get them on your side.) That said, local politics in your area may be in need of greater participation, in which case, by all means, go for it! But make sure you learn about the concerns of your area so you might actually be a good city councilmember for example.
Point is, reform likely has to start at the local level, but local politics are not necessarily as machine-like as Congressional politics.
-
For the US, I'm suggesting a three-pronged campaign to change the elections of state legislators, governors, attorneys general, US Senators, US Representatives, and the elections of the electors who represent a given State in the Electoral College for POTUS and Vice-POTUS.
In the 26 or so States that have initiative and referendum at the State level, initiate such.
In other States, try the other two prongs in order:
Some currently-serving State legislators may have the courage to endorse and promote representative democracy once it is pointed out to them how it is technically possible. The evidence for this is the report e-mailed out by the STAR Voting advocacy organization talking about how they have one or two Oregon legislators expressing support.
For the States that have neither initiative and referendum at the State level nor honest, moral, courageous, intelligent currently-serving State legislators, I suggest [link].
-
@cfrank Given that our current voting system makes it very hard for a third party to gain traction, that seems a bit counterproductive. At least to do it directly like that. Also, where do candidates stand on all the other issues?
I'd think a better approach would be to form a party that is intended to nominate a candidate which a) would likely win under a better system and b) can actually win in a 3-way race under the current system, but will never be a spoiler.
Tricky to do but I think it is worth thought.
-
@rob said in Voters’ Party:
where do candidates stand on all the other issues?
That is for the voters to vet. That's why I propose a shadow primary, as described in one of the three prongs I describe above.
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh said in Voters’ Party:
That is for the voters to vet.
Right but if you are creating a new party it seems like you need to have a general idea of ideology (beyond the meta-issue if how you vote).
On the other hand, if the "ideology" of the party is to simply be centrist, I could get behind that. Methods that I consider good tend toward electing centrists. And in theory, a centrist candidate -- one that is essentially the first choice of the median voter -- might actually be able to win in a plurality election.
I could see a "Harmony Party", where the main goal of the party is to end the tribal politics, by nominating centrist candidates and advocating for better voting systems (that in turn tend to elect centrist candidates)
