johntfs Wrote:No, you don't "got it." Multiple parties roughly equal strength might be a good thing or a bad thing. It will be a different thing. America has traditionally been a two-party state. From the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans to the Democrats and Republicans, two parties have shared or alternated governing power with third parties doing little more than playing spoiler for one of the two main parties (ie the Reform party in 1992 splitting votes from the Republicans and helping Clinton win the White House).
Now, you toss that out, you'll probably end up with a government that looks a lot like those of European Democracies. That's not necessarily bad or good, but it is different. That's all that I'm saying.
bnoble Wrote:I agree with your frustration, and had a few conversations with my 24 year old son- His point to me when I said "What is the point of voting"? ..."In Rhode Island we get 1 electoral vote, so really, why should I bother, I do not want either of those candidates in office and my vote for Johnson isn't going to change the fact that one or the other will win and nobody will even care about my vote". He was very passionate in telling me that yes, the electoral college needs to go , but even though my vote will not give my candidate a shot- it is still my vote and every person needs to vote and understand that their vote does count to someone- the person voting. If we all give up because "My vote doesn't count" then where would we be? He would rather work toward getting rid of the EC, we need to get that done so votes can count and the two big parties cannot be in total control. I was pleased with our conversations- mostly because both my 24 yr old son and 22 yr old daughter were so passionate about their right to vote regardless of the EC- I did go and cast my vote for Gary Johnson even though I knew he would not have a chance in hell of winning...but it was my vote, and my opinion and at least for me that does count for something. It also delights me to see that the younger generation are paying attention and that for all my cynicism and age, I need to remember that there is always our ability to hope for change, keep trying for change and not give up even when the odds are stacked against us.
Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can't try to do things. You simply must do things."
--Ray Bradbury,
American writer
nonquixote Wrote:I also am in favor of switching to direct elections for many of the reasons discussed so far, plus one other. Historically it hasn't really mattered much since the electoral college almost always gets the same result as the popular vote, but IMO direct elections would make it easier for political change to occur. In the general election the smaller parties get disregarded completely since they don't actually tally any electoral votes, so the fact that a certain percentage voted Libertarian or Socialist or whatever becomes irrelevant.
In this past election, if the Republicans had their noses rubbed in the fact that they might have won were it not for people voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul, they might be forced to try to appeal to those voters, rather than ignoring them. Also, it would make it easier for the population to see when a set of ideas are really gaining traction, and thus make them more attractive to the "Wasted Vote" crowd.