I'm disappointed at how timid you are about real voting reform.
First time, I've been called "timid". It's not timidity, it's dispassionate assessment.
Another way of saying this is "winner takes all". This is the common system in America and the UK. In systems with proportional representation, such as in Germany, the voter votes for the party which represents their views and the parliament is created based upon the proportion of votes each party recieves.
Thanks for the explanation. There's always two sides to the coin. Proportional representation has some appeal, but I haven't cared for the notion of voting a party vs. a person. But once I get passed that hurdle, it's not obvious that a German-like system easily transfers to the US. We operate under the notion that our elected officials represent the constituents of the State where they are elected. [Ignore the background laughing.] When you drive down to a State like ... North Dakota ... they get two Senators and 1 member for the House. Start portioning that out by percentages and the implementation of proportional representation become problematic.
As to MONEY in politics, I think you have a very rigid view of the realm of the possible.
For example, Arizona and Maine are two states that have gone to a 100% public financed system.
Arizona is voluntary. Maine I don't know, but I'd guess that the nature of the system would require it be voluntary as well.
We need drastic reform if we are to save the American Republic and prevent the inexorable slide into a criminal imperial police state. George Bush has done more in the last 5 years to ruin America than any other phenomenon in the history of this nation. He has been involved in synthetic terror, ruthless deceit, moral depravity and blatant cronyism.
As purely a speculative guess: What % of the public do you think is informed and actually cares?
jttmab |
