Saturday, April 7, 2018

Killing Democracy: First Past the Post



We all know America is a democracy (well actually a constitutional republic but most Americans just call it a democracy). Also, we all know how a democracy works (well, the majority know the simple fundamentals of it anyway), but most Americans do not realize how crude our democracy actually is.

If you ask Americans off the street what is wrong with our democracy, you may get many different responses to that question. If you ask long enough, one of the responses may be about the first past the post voting system. If you have no clue what that is let me explain.
The first past the post (FPTP) is a voting system in which each person has one vote. Who ever has the most votes wins the election. Seems fair at the basic level but it is not. So what's the matter with this type of voting system?

Allowing voters to only vote once gives many people the feeling that their vote will not count if it is for anything other than the republican or democrats because a vote for a 3rd party is a vote wasted. With less representation, there becomes more apathetic citizenry that do not take the time to vote for they feel their voice is not heard. Switching out FPTP with a option that allows for more than one vote may increase desire from voters to put faith in their preferred candidate/party thus creating a more active voting base.

The alternative vote would allow a voter to vote more than once in a numerical order. If you identify more with socialists, libertarians or whatever you would know that your vote is not wasted on those parties. Once all the votes are accounted for, the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated and that candidate’s votes are distributed to the voters second choice. This process repeats until there is one candidate.

For example, if you really do not like Hillary but you really, really do not like Trump, and you prefer Hillary to win over Trump. Instead of voting for what you consider lesser of the two evils, which in this example would be Hillary, you vote for you most favored candidate with confidence knowing it's not going to waste a vote to help Trump get elected. This would work vise versa as well, if you preferred a more conservative candidate but didn't want Hillary to win you would vote for Trump as a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) choice to ensure you vote is not wasted.

The only thing the alternative vote does is add more options and more possible representation to the citizens. In the end, without any change to our voting system we will continue to be dominated by a two party monopoly (which is only one party more than North Korea and China).

I leave with this quote by John Adams.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

If you want more information about the alternative vote click the link below.


3 comments:

  1. by having more than one vote, you're essentially allowing 2nd or 3rd place in usual polls to win. most of the 2nd or 3rd place votes is generally going to be more moderate, thus the 2nd vote of most voters will get more and more votes. since the voting patterns of the country is more or less polarized, you'll never get the primary targets ie democrats or republicans into office. this would allow for other parties to win elections. this may be a good thing for competition or may be a bad thing if you really wanted a certain (democrat or republican) candidate to win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allowing for a numerical selection in the voting process (Alternative vote) doesn't solve everything. Many problems still carry over from the FPTP voting system. One thing it does solve, or at least deter, is the spoiler effect.

      Without the spoiler effect voters could be confident in supporting other parties without worrying that their vote might help put someone they don't like into office. This also allows more people to engage in the political process as they feel their vote matters more. Which in turn can help end minority rule. Because lets face it, most people who voted or not did not want Bush/Obama/Trump into office then those who did.

      On top of that, it seems the left and right are both slowly scooting to their more ideological extremes. The alternative vote could help prevent this.

      Delete
    2. Because like you said, the 2nd or 3rd place votes is generally going to be more moderate. I would consider that a good thing. Is more moderation not better for this country?

      Delete

Adam Ragusea's Thoughts on Chick-fil-A

I'm not sure this is strictly politics related, but I enjoyed this podcast on boycotting companies and think you might as well.