My proposal to make third parties more viable

[Phys251]

Much of the dialogue that has emerged from this year's bizarre primary elections have included allegations that the electoral process is broken, particularly the fact that our nation isn't doing as well as it could with the two-party system. Though it might be nice to have a multi-party system, the fact is that our current system makes third parties all but impossible. Virtually every seat not just in Congress but in state legislatures is held by a Republican or Democrat. Why? Because of congressional districting, which are often gerrymandered, and first-past-the-post voting. So all that voters can do is to pick a candidate from the party that they feel more nearly represents them. Rinse, lather, and repeat every two years. And this is how elections have gone on in the US for a long time.

I believe I have a much better solution. It could be applied to any state or local election, but this system could apply to elections for the House of Representatives without an amendment to the US Constitution, because congressional districting is not mandated by the Constitution. It is called party-list proportional representation. Also note that there needs to be at least two Representatives elected from this state for this system to make sense. Now, here is how it would work:

1. All congressional districts are abolished within the state, thus creating statewide, at-large Congressional elections. Nothing in the US Constitution requires the districting of representatives; each state simply has to let the people select a given number in a free and fair manner. (Highly-populated states, particularly California, could be split into two or three superdistricts, in which all of the following rules would apply. This would need to be done using an independent districting organization, not by legislatures themselves, to reduce the risk of serious gerrymandering.)
2. Each party who wishes to offer candidates for the general (November) election must run a closed primary. These primaries need to be closed to reduce the risk of voters' poisoning the well of another party. The candidates will be selected via single-transferable vote, with the Droop quota applied. (If you don't know how STV works or what the Droop quota is, here is a very good example. Also, this video explains the process well.)
3. These primaries will send up to N candidates per party to the general election, where N = the total number of representatives allotted to that state. They will be ranked according to the number of first-place votes they received. (This is subject to revision; for instance, for ranking purposes only, 1st place votes could count as one rank vote, 2nd place votes as 1/2 a rank vote, 3rd place as 1/4, 4th place as 1/8, etc.)
4. In the general election, voters will vote not for a candidate but for a party. The parties will be listed on the ballot in descending order of the per-party number of first-place votes received in the primaries. (Ex., if the Democrats got 1.5M votes, the Republicans got 1.2M votes, and the Libertarians got 1.1M, then they would be listed on the ballot in that order.) This is called party-list proportional representation, and it is currently in use by several countries, such as Israel, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, etc.
5. The parties are given seats in Congress proportional to the number of votes received. Which ones get in is determined by the rankings established in step three. For instance, if the Democrats won 8 seats in this election, then their candidates #1-8 would be elected. Also, to avoid having large states' being flooded with lots of tiny parties, any parties that receive less than 5% of the total vote would not have any candidates elected, and the portion of representatives would be allocated only among the parties that surpassed this 5% threshold. (This means that in states with at least twenty representatives, it would be theoretically possible to elect up to twenty different parties from just one state to Congress.)

I think this would make third parties much, much more likely to get in. If the Libertarians, or the Greens, or whatever else party, wanted to rally behind even a small number of representatives, they could much more easily do so than under the current system, where the candidate would have to receive more votes than the opposing Democrat or Republican. And none of this prevents the formation of coalitions, which would be needed to form a majority in the case where no single party has one. But think of how much more diverse Congress would be! No more having to settle just for a Democrat or Republican. Far less gerrymandering. If you're a Libertarian, you could not only vote for them but actually get them into Congress. Same if you're a Green. Or a Socialist. Or whatever. See, the House of Representatives could truly live up to its name!

 

[Anagram]

I don't like voting for parties over individual candidates. I prefer Instant Runoff Voting.

 

[Phys251]

I don't like voting for parties over individual candidates. I prefer Instant Runoff Voting.

That could work too. Do you think IRV would be better suited for the primaries or the general election?

 

[Anagram]

That could work too. Do you think IRV would be better suited for the primaries or the general election?

It would probably have more of an effect in the primaries. It would eliminate the times where a more extremist candidate with a dedicated but small following, wins with a plurality because of fracture opposition. This seems to be a pretty frequent occurrence.

In the general, it probably wouldn't have too big of an effect on third parties, but at least it would make it so there's an accurate reflection of their support. Right now a significant number of people who would otherwise vote for them don't because they feel they have to vote for the lesser of evils.

With voting for parties instead of candidates, I think you lose some of the choice you otherwise would have. You'd never be able to vote for a pro-life Democrat or a socially liberal Republican if that was the type of thing you wanted.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It would probably have more of an effect in the primaries. It would eliminate the times where a more extremist candidate with a dedicated but small following, wins with a plurality because of fracture opposition. This seems to be a pretty frequent occurrence.

In the general, it probably wouldn't have too big of an effect on third parties, but at least it would make it so there's an accurate reflection of their support. Right now a significant number of people who would otherwise vote for them don't because they feel they have to vote for the lesser of evils.

With voting for parties instead of candidates, I think you lose some of the choice you otherwise would have. You'd never be able to vote for a pro-life Democrat or a socially liberal Republican if that was the type of thing you wanted.

Duvergers law as applied to our elections make third parties toothless.

 

[Anagram]

Duvergers law as applied to our elections make third parties toothless.

It certainly does. IRV would improve it.

 

[Phys251]

It would probably have more of an effect in the primaries. It would eliminate the times where a more extremist candidate with a dedicated but small following, wins with a plurality because of fracture opposition. This seems to be a pretty frequent occurrence.

In the general, it probably wouldn't have too big of an effect on third parties, but at least it would make it so there's an accurate reflection of their support. Right now a significant number of people who would otherwise vote for them don't because they feel they have to vote for the lesser of evils.

First-past-the-post plus one-representative-per-district are the two major reasons why third parties aren't viable. I talked about this in the OP. For instance, a state such as Missouri, with eight representatives, could potentially elect 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 2 Libertarians, and 1 Green. Anywhere near a 3-out-of-8 third-party representation would be huge!

With voting for parties instead of candidates, I think you lose some of the choice you otherwise would have. You'd never be able to vote for a pro-life Democrat or a socially liberal Republican if that was the type of thing you wanted.

Ah, that makes sense. Of course, third parties could be a workaround for that, but simply having a desired candidate would probably be easier than building up an entire party, even if locally.

 

[Absentglare]

Hmm.. Interesting.

I like the idea of politicians competing more with one another.

I'm on the fence whether third parties will actually fare any better in the long run- my gut tells me that the more power they get, the more corrupt they will become.

I don't really have a solution for corruption other than something crazy like forced imprisonment of public officials where they cannot spend money or enjoy things.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It certainly does. IRV would improve it.

Personally I think the effects of Duvergers law are a good thing.

 

[Phys251]

Duvergers law as applied to our elections make third parties toothless.

Exactly. Duverger's law, thanks, I mentioned the effect of that law without the name.

 

[Anagram]

Personally I think the effects of Duvergers law are a good thing.

How so? It forces people into voting for people that they don't think are the best candidate and can often lead to people elected who a majority believes is the worst candidate.

 

[Phys251]

How so? It forces people into voting for people that they don't think are the best candidate and can often lead to people elected who a majority believes is the worst candidate.

Indeed. One of my major motivations here is to diffuse the angst of the two-party system through viable political solutions. And these solutions do exist!

 

[Unitedwestand13]

How so? It forces people into voting for people that they don't think are the best candidate and can often lead to people elected who a majority believes is the worst candidate.

Suppose 2 moderate candidates and one radical canididate are on the ballot, and suppose there are 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters. If the moderate voters are divided between the two moderate candidates, the radical one will win unless one of the moderates receives less than 20,000 votes.

 

[Phys251]

Suppose 2 moderate candidates and one radical canididate are on the ballot, and suppose there are 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters. If the moderate voters are divided between the two moderate candidates, the radical one will win unless one of the moderates receives less than 20,000 votes.

That would have a more catastrophic impact on a presidential election than just a handful of Congressional elections. BTW, nothing that I proposed in the OP would directly change the presidential election, though it's worth noting that I do want the electoral college gone.

 

[Anagram]

Suppose 2 moderate candidates and one radical canididate are on the ballot, and suppose there are 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters. If the moderate voters are divided between the two moderate candidates, the radical one will win unless one of the moderates receives less than 20,000 votes.

Right. And I'd argue it's not a good thing that a radical candidate can get elected when 10/18ths of the people would prefer one of the other two. People get attached to their own individual candidate and neither moderate candidate drops out. Then the radical wins. It happens all the time.

 

[joG]

Much of the dialogue that has emerged from this year's bizarre primary elections have included allegations that the electoral process is broken, particularly the fact that our nation isn't doing as well as it could with the two-party system. Though it might be nice to have a multi-party system, the fact is that our current system makes third parties all but impossible. Virtually every seat not just in Congress but in state legislatures is held by a Republican or Democrat. Why? Because of congressional districting, which are often gerrymandered, and first-past-the-post voting. So all that voters can do is to pick a candidate from the party that they feel more nearly represents them. Rinse, lather, and repeat every two years. And this is how elections have gone on in the US for a long time.

I believe I have a much better solution. It could be applied to any state or local election, but this system could apply to elections for the House of Representatives without an amendment to the US Constitution, because congressional districting is not mandated by the Constitution. It is called party-list proportional representation. Also note that there needs to be at least two Representatives elected from this state for this system to make sense. Now, here is how it would work:

1. All congressional districts are abolished within the state, thus creating statewide, at-large Congressional elections. Nothing in the US Constitution requires the districting of representatives; each state simply has to let the people select a given number in a free and fair manner. (Highly-populated states, particularly California, could be split into two or three superdistricts, in which all of the following rules would apply. This would need to be done using an independent districting organization, not by legislatures themselves, to reduce the risk of serious gerrymandering.)
2. Each party who wishes to offer candidates for the general (November) election must run a closed primary. These primaries need to be closed to reduce the risk of voters' poisoning the well of another party. The candidates will be selected via single-transferable vote, with the Droop quota applied. (If you don't know how STV works or what the Droop quota is, here is a very good example. Also, this video explains the process well.)
3. These primaries will send up to N candidates per party to the general election, where N = the total number of representatives allotted to that state. They will be ranked according to the number of first-place votes they received. (This is subject to revision; for instance, for ranking purposes only, 1st place votes could count as one rank vote, 2nd place votes as 1/2 a rank vote, 3rd place as 1/4, 4th place as 1/8, etc.)
4. In the general election, voters will vote not for a candidate but for a party. The parties will be listed on the ballot in descending order of the per-party number of first-place votes received in the primaries. (Ex., if the Democrats got 1.5M votes, the Republicans got 1.2M votes, and the Libertarians got 1.1M, then they would be listed on the ballot in that order.) This is called party-list proportional representation, and it is currently in use by several countries, such as Israel, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, etc.
5. The parties are given seats in Congress proportional to the number of votes received. Which ones get in is determined by the rankings established in step three. For instance, if the Democrats won 8 seats in this election, then their candidates #1-8 would be elected. Also, to avoid having large states' being flooded with lots of tiny parties, any parties that receive less than 5% of the total vote would not have any candidates elected, and the portion of representatives would be allocated only among the parties that surpassed this 5% threshold. (This means that in states with at least twenty representatives, it would be theoretically possible to elect up to twenty different parties from just one state to Congress.)

I think this would make third parties much, much more likely to get in. If the Libertarians, or the Greens, or whatever else party, wanted to rally behind even a small number of representatives, they could much more easily do so than under the current system, where the candidate would have to ....en. Or a Socialist. Or whatever. See, the House of Representatives could truly live up to its name!

I tend not to believe that the problem is less one of parties than of the voter. It might be true that more parties could increase the difference between parties. What I do not see is that it would increase the distance between policies contending at the national level.
But I wouldn't be unwilling to be persuaded by good arguments.

 

[Phys251]

I tend not to believe that the problem is less one of parties than of the voter. It might be true that more parties could increase the difference between parties. What I do not see is that it would increase the distance between policies contending at the national level.
But I wouldn't be unwilling to be persuaded by good arguments.

The thing is, in our current system, you basically have three options: Republican, Democratic, or nothing. And that isn't good for our democracy.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

That would have a more catastrophic impact on a presidential election than just a handful of Congressional elections. BTW, nothing that I proposed in the OP would directly change the presidential election, though it's worth noting that I do want the electoral college gone.

Call me cynical, but I have hard time seeing the libertarian and green parties as off shoots of the republican and democratic parties.

Say what you will about the democratic and republican parties, but at least they have different policy positions.

Libertarians and greens are not able to carve out a broad support base.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Right. And I'd argue it's not a good thing that a radical candidate can get elected when 10/18ths of the people would prefer one of the other two. People get attached to their own individual candidate and neither moderate candidate drops out. Then the radical wins. It happens all the time.

Whoever receives The majority of votes wins

 

[Anagram]

Whoever receives The majority of votes wins

Not currently. You just need a plurality. So a majority can despise a candidate and have him still win. This can and does happen, especially in primaries

 

[RetiredUSN]

320 million people..................... and we have these two azzholes running.

 

[faithful_servant]

Much of the dialogue that has emerged from this year's bizarre primary elections have included allegations that the electoral process is broken, particularly the fact that our nation isn't doing as well as it could with the two-party system. Though it might be nice to have a multi-party system, the fact is that our current system makes third parties all but impossible. Virtually every seat not just in Congress but in state legislatures is held by a Republican or Democrat. Why? Because of congressional districting, which are often gerrymandered, and first-past-the-post voting. So all that voters can do is to pick a candidate from the party that they feel more nearly represents them. Rinse, lather, and repeat every two years. And this is how elections have gone on in the US for a long time.

I believe I have a much better solution. It could be applied to any state or local election, but this system could apply to elections for the House of Representatives without an amendment to the US Constitution, because congressional districting is not mandated by the Constitution. It is called party-list proportional representation. Also note that there needs to be at least two Representatives elected from this state for this system to make sense. Now, here is how it would work:

<snip>

I think this would make third parties much, much more likely to get in. If the Libertarians, or the Greens, or whatever else party, wanted to rally behind even a small number of representatives, they could much more easily do so than under the current system, where the candidate would have to receive more votes than the opposing Democrat or Republican. And none of this prevents the formation of coalitions, which would be needed to form a majority in the case where no single party has one. But think of how much more diverse Congress would be! No more having to settle just for a Democrat or Republican. Far less gerrymandering. If you're a Libertarian, you could not only vote for them but actually get them into Congress. Same if you're a Green. Or a Socialist. Or whatever. See, the House of Representatives could truly live up to its name!

How about 3rd parties work on getting local seats on city councils, county commissions, etc. and prove that they can lead. Then build on that to start running for state legislatures and prove they can be successful at that level. Then start running for Congress and the White House. Instead of creating a sytem that gives 3rd parties an unbalanced edge in elections, have them EARN it.

 

[Mithrae]

How about 3rd parties work on getting local seats on city councils, county commissions, etc. and prove that they can lead. Then build on that to start running for state legislatures and prove they can be successful at that level. Then start running for Congress and the White House. Instead of creating a sytem that gives 3rd parties an unbalanced edge in elections, have them EARN it.

Has Donald Trump proven that he can successfully govern a city or state? The whole reason that people like Trump and Sanders ran for the R and D teams' nominations is the vast imbalance against 3rd parties whenever they are considered a wasted vote; an imbalance which also applies (albeit to a lesser extent) at state and local levels.

 

[joG]

The thing is, in our current system, you basically have three options: Republican, Democratic, or nothing. And that isn't good for our democracy.

The thing is, the breadth of political opinions in each of the parties is very wide. I would almost say that they go as far apart on most items as the total spectrum of political opinion in a country like Germany including all its parties.

 

[Phys251]

The thing is, the breadth of political opinions in each of the parties is very wide. I would almost say that they go as far apart on most items as the total spectrum of political opinion in a country like Germany including all its parties.

Actually our two major parties are as polarized as ever. Ideological purity is the new normal.