The Meta-Party

[Mr Skeptic]

We people in the US are stuck with a nasty two-party system (or rather a two-candidates-and-a-third-guy-who-won't-win system). The problems stem mostly from the fact that we are limited to a choice of only 2 candidates that have any real chance of winning (for the Presidential election and also for most local elections), so that we end up voting for people we might vehemently dislike. I will start a different thread to list and discuss all the problems. In the meantime, I will proceed under the premise that the two party system is undesirable, as is a limitation to two candidates regardless of party.

 

Now, the major cause of the two party system is the result of strategic voting to reduce wasted votes. In strategic voting, people only vote for one of the two candidates they believe are most likely to win (usually Republican or Democrat). This means they are voting for candidate who is their most favorite (or second least favorite) among only the two most likely to win. This could potentially be their second least favorite of all the candidates, but they will vote for him anyways. They will not vote for the third party candidate, because since other people will not vote for the third party candidate (third in the anticipated popularity, regardless of party) then he has no chance of winning. Given that they only have one vote for one person, voting on someone who has no chance to win wastes their vote. A few people reject strategic voting, mostly to make a statement of support for a candidate.

 

Given the above, the elimination of one or both parties will simply tend towards the creation of another two party system with different parties, since it is an effect of our voting system.

 

Solving the Two Party Problem

Now as mentioned, the two party problem stems from two things:

#1) Our voting system requires that a vote for a candidate who will not win be wasted and additionally prevents a vote for one of the candidates who has a chance of winning.

#2) Strategic voting is based on the perceived chance of winning of the candidates, which on a practical note has a history of being the Republican or Democrat candidate.

 

Solving #1 would be ideal, but would most likely require the cooperation of both Democrats and Republicans that are already elected via the current system that hugely benefits them. It is very much not in the self-interest of either of their parties to make such a change, as the current system gives them nearly 50% chance each to get their candidate elected.

 

A voting system that allows you to vote for multiple candidates, or that allows a "losing" candidate to still have some say, would both eliminate the problem if they could be implemented.

 

Since solving #1 is unlikely to happen without the majority of the population absolutely demanding it from both Republicans and Democrats, perhaps it would be easier to solve #2.

 

The Meta-Party

My suggestion for that is to solve the problem ourselves since our politicians most certainly won't. I suggest we create a Meta-Party, a party that transcends ideological and political boundaries and implements a superior voting system in the selection of its candidate. So long as the Meta-Party has enough popular support the winner of the Meta-Party primary will likely be the winner of the actual election. (Not guaranteed, because one of the top two candidates could be the top favorite of the most people but not the most favorite overall candidate)

 

Anyone may be a candidate for the Meta-Party regardless of their ideology or membership in another party, and indeed every single person eligible to become President of the United States is a candidate. For practical purposes, however, only people who have significant support will be put on the actual ballot by name.

 

Everyone may be a member of the Meta-Party regardless of their ideology or membership in another party, and indeed every single person eligible to vote is (though they may not bother to vote in the Meta-Party's internal election nor even in the real election).

 

The point of the Meta-Party is to bypass the horrible voting system we have, and replace it in practice if not in law with a superior voting system. It is a simulation of what the election would be like with a better voting system, and it's purpose is to find the people's favorite candidate. This is why everyone eligible is a member and and/or a candidate and why ideology and political issues don't matter to this party. By selecting a highly favored candidate and showing extremely strong support for them among the entire voting population, we can give a candidate a very high chance of winning, without them having to be a member of any political party. We would still have a two candidate voting system, but one of the candidates will be the overall favorite.

 

The Meta-Party also would hold elections for local candidates, in which case members may vote for the candidates for the location they are registered to vote in.

 

The voting system to be used by the Meta-Party would then be the next question. There are several good choices. There's rated voting systems and instant runoff voting, for example.

 

Anyhow, what do you think of my idea for a Meta-Party? Would you support it? Do you think I should make some changes? Could it be implemented in practice?

[jackson33]

Mr. Skeptic;

Anyhow, what do you think of my idea for a Meta-Party? Would you support it? Do you think I should make some changes? Could it be implemented in practice? [/Quote]

 

While I believe your "idea" has been extremely well presented, I'm not sure you understand the accepted process, which EACH State has it's own policy, then with regards to those that vote in that State.

 

In the latest Presidential Election (2008) there were 18 Political Parties that formally participated in one State or more. There have been about 100 parties, that over the years, that did the same and many individuals (no party) have run for President, in States where this is permitted.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

 

This process, through primaries or physical caucus meetings (town hall format), determine the Candidate for the only National Office, they and all other States are permitted to participate in the final choice. Even the VP, unless pre-announced is the choice of the future nominee, not the elctorate. Your Meta-Party, would be subject to the same problems any of those 100/Individuals have gone through. Keep in mind, no Federal Agency or Congress has the right to tell any State how to run there election and can only attempt to regulate the parties that participate. The purpose, objective and goal of each State is;

 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

 

Under this system, which would take several amendments to change or alter (inconceivable), the only way a tie can occur, is at the National Level. If there are three Candidates from three parties, none of which have the majority, or two candidates that draw the same number on electors in the final tally (remember the electorates are not always bound by State Constitutions to vote with their people), the House will determine the final winner. Aside from this, in making a vote the person is already prioritizing his/her vote. If they believe themselves to be Conservative or Liberal rather than voting for their preferred party, they will vote for one of the majors that best meets their viewpoint, if not acceptable vote for the preferred party or simply set out the election.

 

On your instant runoff; Ironically the few States that still use the caucus system, do exactly that. They will vote their first choice and if a majority is not achieved, are allowed to vote their second choice and so on until someone has the clear majority. This is not usually done by ballots, rather gathering in different places, to save time. Not all parties use the same means in electing their party nominee in every State.

[bascule]

Poll needs option: tl;dr

[Mr Skeptic]

What option?

[Sisyphus]

tl;dr = too long, didn't read

 

I did read, though, and the main problem I see is that there's no reason meta party members would vote for the selected candidate in the general election. Suppose I'm a liberal. I vote for a candidate I like in the meta party primary, but an authoritarian theocrat wins. Am I really going to vote for that guy in the general election, if there's a candidate I don't find repugnant nominated by the Democrats or Republicans?

[CaptainPanic]

I didn't read it all (too long). But I'll still post something, hoping it's on topic:

 

Just split up the republican and democrat parties into smaller parties. Within those two parties there are enough people who disagree on many topics, so writing the party programs shouldn't even be too hard.

 

Then you nearly automatically get a multi-party system, and your problem is solved.

 

(Perhaps the voting system also needs to be reviewed though - not sure if the US systems would function with multi-party politics at all).

[Mr Skeptic]

tl;dr = too long, didn't read

 

Oh. Well then, the short version for the lazybums:

The US has a two party system, which is a bad thing. The two party system is a result of the fact that voting for a third party wastes your vote since they won't win. There's no way in hell that the Republicans and Democrats are going to change a system that virtually guarantees one of the two will win, so I suggest a way to do it ourselves.

 

My solutions is to create a Meta-Party that implements a superior voting system but has no ideologies nor policies of its own. Its function is simply to pick better candidate, and to show that the candidate has strong support, marking him as one of the top two contenders, so people know that their vote won't be wasted on this person because other people will vote for him too. Everyone is free to participate in the Meta-Party regardless of their ideology or political leanings or membership in another party.

 

I did read, though, and the main problem I see is that there's no reason meta party members would vote for the selected candidate in the general election. Suppose I'm a liberal. I vote for a candidate I like in the meta party primary, but an authoritarian theocrat wins. Am I really going to vote for that guy in the general election, if there's a candidate I don't find repugnant nominated by the Democrats or Republicans?

 

Well, obviously there is no guarantee that a person who voted in a primary will vote in the general election for the person who won the primary. This is equally true for any other party. However, the winner by definition has the support of the majority of the people who voted for him, who due to the structure of the Meta-Party should be the voting population as a whole.

 

In a worst case scenario as far as victory for the selected candidate is concerned, it could turn out that the Meta-Party candidate is the second choice for everyone, but they individually prefer the Republican or Democrat candidate. However, this would mean that one of the favorite people will be winning the election, which pretty much is what the purpose of the Meta-Party was to begin with. Not ideal, but not terrible.

 

What shouldn't happen is that people despise the Republican and Democrat candidates but vote for them anyways because of the fear of wasting their vote. In this case the Meta-Party will provide a well-favored candidate with the credibility to win the election, so that people are not afraid to waste their vote on him.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[john5746]

I think it would be easier to change the voting system than for your proposal to work. Candidates eventually must address issues that people care about. Maybe a Mainstream Party, where the candidate runs on the issues based on poll results.

[npts2020]

or.....We could pass a constitutional amendment to abolish political parties. This would require voters to actually learn candidate's stances on issues in order to know who they should vote for and elected officials would not be beholden to the "party line" when deciding on legislation.

BTW I am in favor of any second party with a societal interest based platform rather than the business interest based platform of the two wings of our current ONE party system.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it would be easier to change the voting system than for your proposal to work. Candidates eventually must address issues that people care about. Maybe a Mainstream Party, where the candidate runs on the issues based on poll results.

 

I think you misunderstand my proposal. Why would the voting population elect a candidate that doesn't address the issues they care about? My Meta-Party is just everyone voting under a different voting system (to select it's candidate). Sure it would be preferable to change the voting system but how will you get the Republicans and Democrats to make the change?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

or.....We could pass a constitutional amendment to abolish political parties.

 

Nope, it would be unenforceable. And again, why would the Republicans and Democrats do that?

[npts2020]

why would the Republicans and Democrats do that?

 

Why would the Republocrats do anything to change the way the current system works? Please forgive me for thinking most of the discussion was speculation.