Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Political wish list

     Okay the elections are over; and happily McCain lost. With a little luck the Republican party will start considering the needs of the entire country rather than just the demands of its base.

      Now, for some things that I would like to see (but I'm not holding my breath.)

I would like to see Congress have to face a vote of confidence on a regular basis. I do not mean the current election system where people say "they should throw all of Congress out except for my Congressman." I would like to a nationwide vote on whether Congress is doing a good job, and if the vote is "no," removing everyone.

I would like to see a system that did not effectively lock into two parties (which I often think are in cahoots.) Let's face it, people vote for the two major parties to avoid having the election go to the other party. It is not safe to vote for a different preference. A different system that allowed one to indicate one's true preference without throwing the election to the worst choice would be better. I like the idea of a ranked system. Everyone ranks candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the most votes of lowest rank is discharged, then it repeats with the effective ranks of remaining candidates until only one is left.


Igor said...

Don't hold your breath. Your vote of confidence idea will require a constitutional amendment to be initiated by and voted on in the Congress.

As for your ranking of the candidates, I'm a little confused. Wouldn't the candidate ranked the highest by EVERYONE get the most votes. If, for the sake of the argument, we assume that the lowest ranked candidate get the highest amount of votes, wouldn't you by discharging him ignore the will of the people. For a better multipartite system look at Britain or Canada, although parliamentary systems have their disadvantages.

Pvblivs said...

     Here, by "lowest ranked" I mean the last choice, Your 4th choice is (to you) a lower rank than your 2nd choice. Now, if I understand your example, you are talking about a candidate who gets both the most number 1 votes and the most "bottom of the barrel" votes. Such a candidate is divisive. The goal I would have in mind is to someone who would represent everyone's interest and not dump on the minority.
     As I said, I am not holding my breath. I don't think that members of Congress will push a limit on curbs to their own power and I don't expect to see 34 states holding Constitutional conventions on the issue any time soon, either. (I don't think that alternate method -- spelled out in the Constitution -- has ever been used.)

Igor said...

Of curse one representing the majority is technically prevented from dumping on the minority by the state and federal constitutions and the courts. Although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "dumping", i take it as passing any resolution infringing on the rights of the minority, rather than necessarily implementing the will of the minority (which could be rather large, or incredibly small). The reality is that it's impossible to have a candidate who will be able to adequately reconcile two directly opposing views and please everyone.

Andrew Louis said...

Saw you at Debunking Atheists and justed wanted to ask. What's up with Dan? I don't use my terms loosly when I say that he seems like real asshole.

How can you put up with posting there?

Pvblivs said...

     Well, I always hold hope for helping people to understand one another. The problem, as I see it, is that people talk past one another and are overconfident that their view is correct. I am not sure he sees his own double-standard.