Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to I didn't think you were defining "interest group"...

I wasn't
Robert — (archived)

Actually, I'm defining an "interest group" as narrower than a political party; and part of my thesis is that today's political parties are so broadly-defined (because there are only two of them) that they don't represent anyone very well. What we deal with every election is choosing the lesser evil based on how little of a party's platform we find repugnant. Why not find a way to allow people to vote their consciences?

I didn't draw much attention to it, but an important part of this idea that I mentioned only in passing is that every voter gets multiple votes. Maybe 10, 20, could even be a hundred. Mathematically, I don't think the number matters. If the New House has 1000 seats, then the 1000 candidates who got the most votes nationwide take office. This means that an individual can allocate his/her votes in proportion to concerns. A single-issue voter might give all the votes to one candidate or party, say anti-choice or environmentalist. Other people might spread their votes around in proportion to an array of concerns. To use Tom as an example, he might give 50% of his votes to an anti-taxer, 25% to a deregulator, and the remaining 25% to a pro-space advocate.

The idea is to recognize that people (generally) care about more than one issue, and often their issues might be contradictory within the conventional two-party dichotomy. How many times have you heard someone try to describe themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"? That's a fine example of somebody who can't be well-represented by either existing party. What I'm shooting for with this idea is a way to get the most accurate and fine-grained representation of what people really care about, instead of what the parties want them to care about. Is this our government, or does it belong to the two political parties? Why should we have to choose only from their menu?

So, Tom wouldn't have to decide to vote "straight Libertarian" or "straight Republican"--he could have his cake and eat it too by allocating his votes among candidates of either party (or better to say any party) who closely reflect his own views. The idea is to eliminate the false choice between voting your conscience or voting to win. I'd say that having a House with 10% Libertarian representation is a damn sight better, for Tom, than no representation at all.

Am I doing a better job explaining it yet?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (79 posts)