The Status Quo - everyone talks about it, but what supports it?

The two-party system is the status quo in the United States. We all know this like we know the sky is blue. I have been doing a lot of thinking about what pillars or foundation the current system of power rests on, and I have come up with some ideas. These pillars are by no means a comprehensive inventory of how the status quo remains in place, but they are important pieces of the puzzle.

If you want change, you have to collapse one or more of the pillars that the status quo rests on. Ready for some demolition?

The Pillars:

1. Corporate and Special Interest campaign financing. Corporations and special interest want to stack the sytem to their advantage, so they donate - as individuals, via political action committees, via 527 issue-groups, etc.
2. Politics has been turned in to a spectator sport. Either by accident or by design, the two major parties have turned politics in to a spectator sport, where supporters sit in the stands and cheer for their team, but never take the field as players, or even work the sidelines. Their job is to simply make noise when their side tells them to. Citizen politicians are by far the minority in elected office, especially at the federal level. The career politician, supported by special interest financing, and an army of paid political operative, run the show, and amateurs need not apply.
3. Winner-take-all voting for single-seat elections. When elections roll around, we are sternly warned by the status quo not to waste our votes on third party or independent candidates. The participation of these candidates is somehow a problem, and a "spoiler." This voting system, and the message put out regarding it, serve as a method to coerce people into not voting their conscience. All registered Democrats must for a Democrat, no matter what. All registered Republicans must vote for a Republican, no matter what. Independents may vote for either a Democrat, or a Republican, but NOT for an independent candidate and not for a third party candidate.

In order for a system to collapse or be forced to change, at least one of these pillars must be kicked out from underneath it. I am aiming for #3. And you?

--

Daryl Northrop

3 > 2. How do other countries deal with multi-party systems?

Here in the United States, we have a two-party system. But to be more accurrate, we have a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system for nearly all our elections. Now, everyone (or nearly everyone, I'm sure the executive committees of the GOP and DNC don't) complain about the two-party system, and how we need more choices at the ballot box. Here in the US, the GOP and DNC choose not to change the voting system to accomodate the wishes of the electorate. Some states do have delayed-runoff voting, where if no candidate receives a majority (50% + 1) of the votes, a runoff election occurs between the top two vote-getters. The result is added tax-payer expense, low voter turnout, and no real challenge to the two-party monopoly on power.

While this blog has had posts about IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) before, but how do other countries deal with a multi-party democracy? As it turns out, there are a lot of options.

Proportional Representation: This article at Boston Review sums up proportional representation nicely - the basic principle is that voters would choose a party instead of an individual candidate, and a given party would win seats in the legislature in proportion to the percentage of the votes it earns. In a 100 seat legislature, a party that gets 7% of the vote would receive 7 seats. So in this system, there is a prize for coming in second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation: Because you can always count on the Germans to come up with a short, catchy name for something. Half the seats are allocated using single-seate constituencies (US Congressional elections use this method). The other half of the seats are allocated based on a form of proportional representation, with a 5% threshhold. At the individual voter level, each voter casts two vote, one for an individual candidate, and one for a party. In the US that would translate for a voter having the option of voting for a third party candidate, and for a major party.

This is just a sample of how other countries deal with more than two parties without it being an issue of "spoiling."

We can do better in our country.

---

Daryl Northrop

My segment from The Alyona Show on RT Television

Here is my segment on campaign finance reform and related issues from The Alyona Show on RT Television. The link to all their segments is on YouTube here.

It was great to be on so viewers could hear about campaign finance from somone outside of the two corporate-dominated parties!

Enjoy the segment...

--

Daryl Northrop

How you vote is important - Green Party supports real voting reform

So you vote, right?

Right??

Everyone talks about who to vote for: the best man, woman, for the job - the smartest or the toughest or the most peaceful or the least peaceful or the tallest or the best looking. People use many different methods to determine who they vote for.

But have you ever thought of how we vote?

For presidential campaigns, each state has a number of votes in the electoral college, so whether you vote for the Green Party candidate, the Republican candidate, or the Libertarian candidate, you're not actually voting for the candidates, you are choosing electors.

So, whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in a given state, gets all of that states electors (with the exception of a couple of states). There is no prize for second place, and if you vote for a third party candidate, you are often mocked for "wasting" your vote.

 If voting for the candidate of your choice is such a big problem, then the Green Party of the United States presents:

Solution time!

Option 1: All independent candidates and political parties who are not the Democratic and Republican Party should be banned! Well, not constitutional, and rather mean-spirited.

Option 2: How about a parliamentary system with proportional representation? Not a bad idea, but it would take one (or more) amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus possibly amendments to various state constitutions, and other constitutional legal headaches. President Obama taught constitutional law, we could ask him....

Option 3: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) - now here's an idea whose time has come! Instant Runoff Voting allows you, the voter, to rank your candidates in order of preference when there are more than two candidates running for a single office (1992 Presidential campaign: Clinton, GHW Bush, Perot - 2000 Presidential campaign: Gore, GW Bush, Nader) WITHOUT "WASTING" YOUR VOTE.

How does it work?

The short version is: You rank your candidates in order of your preference, 1. Jane 2. Bob 3. Pete
Then, the votes are counted. If a candidate receives a majority (50%+1) then they win and the election is over. However, if none of the candidates get a majority, the Instant Runoff happens. The candidate with the least amount of votes is dropped, and if you voted for that person, then YOUR vote transfers to YOUR SECOND CHOICE. So, it's impossible to waste your vote - your vote only supports candidates you support, and never ends up accidentally helping candidates you oppose.

Looking back, my "short version" is way too long. IRV is so simple and easy to use the liberal Hollywood elite use it to decide the winner of Best Picture in the Academy Awards!

Here is an animated clip from the good folks at FairVote that breaks it all down.:

The Green Party supports your right to a better way of voting! We support Instant Runoff Voting as a way to broaden political participation, and enrich the political culture of our country.

Greens are fighting for a more vibrant democracy. You, the citizen and voter, deserve nothing less.

Like pictures? Here's the flow chart of an election using IRV/Instant Runoff Voting. Pretty......

--
Daryl Northrop