Voter's Unions

[Ug make hammer]

This one is half-baked. It's an idea born of desperation!

The Anglophone nations are plagued by an ancient meme from the UK Parliament, that representation of the people is best done geographically. People in one area must have more in common, that people in one sector of industry, or people with a particular family type. It's wrong, it's stupid. It divides significant minorities who should be represented, by dividing them geographically.

There are top-down work-arounds for this. Electoral method is generally enshrined in national constitutions, which vary in how easy they are to amend. Americans listen up: your constitution is muscle-bound, hide-bound and may never be amended again. European nations ironically got lucky when Nazi Germany invaded them. Starting again from scratch, they got to write constitutions in which at least one chamber are proportionally representational. But top-down will not work when at the top are a few major parties whose interests would be harmed by letting minor parties into "their" parliaments.

My idea is this. Voters enter a Union of mutual trust. A voter in the most likely district/riding/constituency to elect a Green member, enters a contract with a Green voter, trading away their personally preferred Conservative or Labor vote. Through the Voter's Union, their Conservative or Labor vote will be pledged elsewhere, where it will make the most difference.

Of course bogus Unions would form. That should shake out within one electoral cycle, but if it takes two it might still be worth it.

What do you think? Pledge your vote to the Union, overturn Two Party? Would you do it?

 

[Individual]

This one is half-baked. It's an idea born of desperation!

The Anglophone nations are plagued by an ancient meme from the UK Parliament, that representation of the people is best done geographically. People in one area must have more in common, that people in one sector of industry, or people with a particular family type. It's wrong, it's stupid. It divides significant minorities who should be represented, by dividing them geographically.

There are top-down work-arounds for this. Electoral method is generally enshrined in national constitutions, which vary in how easy they are to amend. Americans listen up: your constitution is muscle-bound, hide-bound and may never be amended again. European nations ironically got lucky when Nazi Germany invaded them. Starting again from scratch, they got to write constitutions in which at least one chamber are proportionally representational. But top-down will not work when at the top are a few major parties whose interests would be harmed by letting minor parties into "their" parliaments.

My idea is this. Voters enter a Union of mutual trust. A voter in the most likely district/riding/constituency to elect a Green member, enters a contract with a Green voter, trading away their personally preferred Conservative or Labor vote. Through the Voter's Union, their Conservative or Labor vote will be pledged elsewhere, where it will make the most difference.

Of course bogus Unions would form. That should shake out within one electoral cycle, but if it takes two it might still be worth it.

What do you think? Pledge your vote to the Union, overturn Two Party? Would you do it?

I'd prefer putting an end to political parties, and electing individuals who will represent the majority of their constituents in voting on each issue. Constituents being defined as ALL the voters in their district.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I'd prefer putting an end to political parties, and electing individuals who will represent the majority of their constituents in voting on each issue. Constituents being defined as ALL the voters in their district.

You can't put an end to political parties. You elect someone, they WILL form alliances and oppositions to other elected persons. You can't fight that.

What I'm talking about is undermining the two-party system. If it works then individual representatives (no party) will get a small share of the pie. You cannot ask more.

 

[Individual]

You can't put an end to political parties. You elect someone, they WILL form alliances and oppositions to other elected persons. You can't fight that.

What I'm talking about is undermining the two-party system. If it works then individual representatives (no party) will get a small share of the pie. You cannot ask more.

Just maybe alliances would be better than what political parties subject us with.
They get a small share now. Four members of Congress are neither Republicans or Democrats.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Just maybe alliances would be better than what political parties subject us with.
They get a small share now. Four members of Congress are not Republicans or Democrats/

Four? Angus King and Bernie Sanders, that's two. The other two are non-voting "representatives" in the House.

King I'm not sure about, but Sanders has a long record of running in Democratic primaries, winning, and thus knocking out any Democratic opposition in Vermont. This only works because Vermont is heavily left leaning.

I'm looking for something more systemic, which gets Libertarians, Greens, etc their fair share of the House.

 

[Individual]

Four? Angus King and Bernie Sanders, that's two. The other two are non-voting "representatives" in the House.

King I'm not sure about, but Sanders has a long record of running in Democratic primaries, winning, and thus knocking out any Democratic opposition in Vermont. This only works because Vermont is heavily left leaning.

I'm looking for something more systemic, which gets Libertarians, Greens, etc their fair share of the House.

I find political parties force voters to be left with only the choice of picking the least worst candidates, and also the primary source of deepening division of the governed.
Third party candidates would win elections if they had viable candidates, but they may only attract votes based on issues that simply aren't attractive to a majority of voters.
I've yet to find a party or platform that I agree with totally. Voters are most often left only to accept the bad with the good, and the bad may exceed the good no matter which candidate you vote for.
As I said, our elected politicians should know, and be representatives of their constituents, NOT their party or their own desires of what government should do.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I find political parties force voters to be left with only the choice of picking the least worst candidates, and also the primary source of deepening division of the governed.
Third party candidates would win elections if they had viable candidates, but they may only attract votes based on issues that simply aren't attractive to a majority of voters.
I've yet to find a party or platform that I agree with totally. Voters are most often left only to accept the bad with the good, and the bad may exceed the good no matter which candidate you vote for.
As I said, our elected politicians should know, and be representatives of their constituents, NOT their party or their own desires of what government should do.

I don't think viable candidates will make much difference. Johnson/Weld got a record 3.3% in 2016 and (matter of opinion) they were both better candidates than Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine.

The problem is that lots of people who would vote third party if they could win, end up voting for a lesser of two evils candidate. Johnson/Weld polled about twice what they actually got. Someday a third party (probably a centrist or anti-war one) might just keep going up and somewhere over 20% hit "viability" where they hold all the votes opinion polls say they could have. But it really does not look likely.

The problem with first-past-the-post is vote splitting. If you prefer A to B and B to C, spending your vote on A when they can't win makes it more likely you'll get your least favorite, C. The perceived gap between A and B has to be huge, to the point you don't care which one of B or C get elected, before you'll spend your vote just to make A look a bit better.

There are many possible approaches, but they all require change from the top (in the constitution even). What I'm suggesting is a weak solution — it would not be resistant to partisans joining up to trick others out of their vote — but it's the best I can think of purely from the voter side. Just now I'm considering ways to make it a contract between pairs of voters, and if either reports that the other has cheated (eg not showing a photocopy where those are available) then the cheater would be banned from the Union in subsequent elections. The standard of proof is worrying though.

Perhaps combine it with another (state level) idea I had, that voters should be able to verify their own vote was counted correctly, or if they want to make that information available to election auditors, actually make their vote public. Use of either the private or the public information would enable the Voter's Union to expel cheaters with a high degree of certainty.

 

[Individual]

I don't think viable candidates will make much difference. Johnson/Weld got a record 3.3% in 2016 and (matter of opinion) they were both better candidates than Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine.

The problem is that lots of people who would vote third party if they could win, end up voting for a lesser of two evils candidate. Johnson/Weld polled about twice what they actually got. Someday a third party (probably a centrist or anti-war one) might just keep going up and somewhere over 20% hit "viability" where they hold all the votes opinion polls say they could have. But it really does not look likely.

The problem with first-past-the-post is vote splitting. If you prefer A to B and B to C, spending your vote on A when they can't win makes it more likely you'll get your least favorite, C. The perceived gap between A and B has to be huge, to the point you don't care which one of B or C get elected, before you'll spend your vote just to make A look a bit better.

There are many possible approaches, but they all require change from the top (in the constitution even). What I'm suggesting is a weak solution — it would not be resistant to partisans joining up to trick others out of their vote — but it's the best I can think of purely from the voter side. Just now I'm considering ways to make it a contract between pairs of voters, and if either reports that the other has cheated (eg not showing a photocopy where those are available) then the cheater would be banned from the Union in subsequent elections. The standard of proof is worrying though.

Perhaps combine it with another (state level) idea I had, that voters should be able to verify their own vote was counted correctly, or if they want to make that information available to election auditors, actually make their vote public. Use of either the private or the public information would enable the Voter's Union to expel cheaters with a high degree of certainty.

I'd still prefer elimination of political parties in the U.S, but Norway can do what it wants.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I'd still prefer elimination of political parties in the U.S, but Norway can do what it wants.

I'm not Norwegian, just btw. I just think that US-dominated forums should be more considerate of ideas from outside.

How would you make political parties go away then? They're practically universal except at the local level where you might as well elect ...

Spoiler: Mayor Stubbs

 

[Individual]

I'm not Norwegian, just btw. I just think that US-dominated forums should be more considerate of ideas from outside.

How would you make political parties go away then? They're practically universal except at the local level where you might as well elect ...

Spoiler: Mayor Stubbs

View attachment 67380396

I do consider ideas from outside, primarily as a result of seeing how they perform where they are in use. Maybe the U.S. should become the AU (American Union) more like the EU in some ways.

Simply ban their existence, primarily the ability to provide resources or other means of support to political candidates. Campaign funding should be allowed ONLY from citizens who would be constituents, and candidates should learn from those can cast votes in their election, what the majority see as major issues and acceptable solutions they should strive to accomplish if elected. Those elected should periodically return to their constituents to be graded on their performance by listening to their constituents. Perhaps then, more people would vote if they found they actually had a more viable role in how our government operated. In Federal election years TV and Radio stations could be required to provide each candidate who meets the requirements to be placed on a ballot equal time to speak without any cost. Businesses and/or wealthy persons could donate to make that time available but without connection to any one candidate.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I do consider ideas from outside, primarily as a result of seeing how they perform where they are in use. Maybe the U.S. should become the AU (American Union) more like the EU in some ways.

Simply ban their existence, primarily the ability to provide resources or other means of support to political candidates. Campaign funding should be allowed ONLY from citizens who would be constituents, and candidates should learn from those can cast votes in their election, what the majority see as major issues and acceptable solutions they should strive to accomplish if elected. Those elected should periodically return to their constituents to be graded on their performance by listening to their constituents. Perhaps then, more people would vote if they found they actually had a more viable role in how our government operated. In Federal election years TV and Radio stations could be required to provide each candidate who meets the requirements to be placed on a ballot equal time to speak without any cost. Businesses and/or wealthy persons could donate to make that time available but without connection to any one candidate.

So it's not the existence of parties in Congress which bothers you, so much as the role of parties in funding campaigns?

I really can't agree with the free speech limitations you propose, but as long as you still recognize the need of elected members to act in concert with each other (ie parties in Congress) I won't condemn your suggestions.

 

[Individual]

So it's not the existence of parties in Congress which bothers you, so much as the role of parties in funding campaigns?

I really can't agree with the free speech limitations you propose, but as long as you still recognize the need of elected members to act in concert with each other (ie parties in Congress) I won't condemn your suggestions.

Actually it's the role parties play in making changes to our government to try an ensure election/reelection of party members.
Have I proposed any free speech limitations?
I recognize only the need of elected members of our government to represent the majority of their constituents, regardless of which party they belong to.

 

[Ug make hammer]

An example, using 2016 which was a good year for third and fourth parties. And using the Presidential vote, only because very few House or Senate seats were contested by third and fourth parties.

In New Mexico, the Johnson/Weld ticket got 9.34% in 2016. By a scanty interpolation I estimate

​	2012.0​	2016.0​	2020​	​	1016 bump​	2 party​
NM Dem​	53.0​	48.3​	54.3​	​	-5.4​	-62%​
NM Rep​	42.8​	40.0​	43.5​	​	-3.2​	-37%​
NM Lib​	3.6​	9.3​	1.4​	​	6.8​	​

And a chart to illustrate that:



Clearly the Democratic Party is the most likely unionist. To support Johnson/Weld and win New Mexico's five electors, would take ( 40% - 9.3% = ) 30.7% of the statewide vote. 2016 ballots cast was 798 thousand, so it would take a Union membership (and voting as pledged) of 244 thousand voters in New Mexico.

Remember we're only considering a bilateral Union. I was led to DEM/LIB simply by choosing the most recent and salient Libertarian state. New Mexico. If someone cares to run the same simple analysis on North Dakota 2016, I expect a very strong case would be made for a REP/LIB union.

Put down any hot food or drinks you may have. You have been warned.

With the 244 thousand Democrat votes the union has traded New Mexico for, it can take Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Nebraskas 1 and 2, and Maine 2 for a cherry on top!


(please calp)

And why would Libertarians agree to be involved in this swampy scheme? Well they could use the College as a platform to inspire future campaigns, but they might also be getting the lesser of two evils just as they would if they were not unionized at all, plus the satisfaction that by unionizing they have helped a political ally-voter get their favored candidate elected.

Individuals with L>R>D>G preferences will have to form their own union, and I imagine if the idea catches on (and isn't prohibited by law) the two main varieties could become established within one election campaign. It will be very difficult for voters with an "inversion" like L>G>R>D to find a worthwhile swap anywhere, and there are so many failure modes of my idea, I'm a bit ashamed to have coughed it up. But I'm not done chewing it over either. Sooo juicy.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Actually it's the role parties play in making changes to our government to try an ensure election/reelection of party members.

Representative democracy wouldn't make sense unless the people were represented to something. People, representatives, Congress.

Have I proposed any free speech limitations?

I though you did. If you're not going to smoke that thing, snuff it out.

I recognize only the need of elected members of our government to represent the majority of their constituents, regardless of which party they belong to.

It's a nice idea, but when you get together some smart or attractive, usually tall, people and task them with ... well anything, really ... what do you think happens? Parties!

 

[Individual]

Representative democracy wouldn't make sense unless the people were represented to something. People, representatives, Congress.



I though you did. If you're not going to smoke that thing, snuff it out.



It's a nice idea, but when you get together some smart or attractive, usually tall, people and task them with ... well anything, really ... what do you think happens? Parties!

I party when my work is done.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I party when my work is done.

Quite right too. When I was young I had a more anarchist temperament, and the end of parties seemed somewhat practical. But now I see it as almost absurd to expect adults to collaborate on the work of government, without forming into gangs or cliques or pacts. At this point I would settle for Three Party with all the chaos that would cause.

Individualism taken too far leads to an elected Monarchy. Scattered throughout history in many different countries, are examples of elected Monarchs. They are prone to two things: becoming hereditary, and dividing the country under different Monarchs. Not recommended for the US.

 

[Individual]

Quite right too. When I was young I had a more anarchist temperament, and the end of parties seemed somewhat practical. But now I see it as almost absurd to expect adults to collaborate on the work of government, without forming into gangs or cliques or pacts. At this point I would settle for Three Party with all the chaos that would cause.

Individualism taken too far leads to an elected Monarchy. Scattered throughout history in many different countries, are examples of elected Monarchs. They are prone to two things: becoming hereditary, and dividing the country under different Monarchs. Not recommended for the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems you support a strong centralized democratic form of government, while I am more supportive of a great many strong localized democratic forms of government controlled by State governments and State Constitutions, who are in turn controlled by Federal laws created as a result of consensus by a majority of representatives of the People and the States within the limits of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems you support a strong centralized democratic form of government, while I am more supportive of a great many strong localized democratic forms of government controlled by State governments and State Constitutions, who are in turn controlled by Federal laws created as a result of consensus by a majority of representatives of the People and the States within the limits of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

I'm pretty happy with the Federal role of redistributing income from rich to poor states. No interstate compact would ever achieve that, because states are selfish. Least happy with States having control over how Federal elections are run: Feds should do that, and if States want to piggyback their elections onto the same day and venues, then fine.

I used the example of Presidential elections, but Voter Unions would have more success in Senate and House states/districts, and there's nothing to prevent them being used within a state, for state elections. The only office they wouldn't make any difference in, is state Governor. Perhaps voters could swap between states, for Governor, but it would aggravate the politicians of the smaller state.

 

[Individual]

I'm pretty happy with the Federal role of redistributing income from rich to poor states. No interstate compact would ever achieve that, because states are selfish. Least happy with States having control over how Federal elections are run: Feds should do that, and if States want to piggyback their elections onto the same day and venues, then fine.

I used the example of Presidential elections, but Voter Unions would have more success in Senate and House states/districts, and there's nothing to prevent them being used within a state, for state elections. The only office they wouldn't make any difference in, is state Governor. Perhaps voters could swap between states, for Governor, but it would aggravate the politicians of the smaller state.

As this thread seems to not attract much interest, and it's obvious we have found no common ground to advance from, I'll leave it for another or others to keep the thread alive or allow it to perish.
We at least agree that change is needed.

 

[HangLow]

Four? Angus King and Bernie Sanders, that's two. The other two are non-voting "representatives" in the House.

King I'm not sure about, but Sanders has a long record of running in Democratic primaries, winning, and thus knocking out any Democratic opposition in Vermont. This only works because Vermont is heavily left leaning.

I'm looking for something more systemic, which gets Libertarians, Greens, etc their fair share of the House.

​

 

[Ug make hammer]

On further thought, the only way this works is if participants can verify that their vote was cast elsewhere, by a "buddy" also in the Union.

States would need to implement as Overt Voting option on all ballots, and participants in the Voter Union would need to tick that box when they vote.

Anyone entering a voting contract and then NOT publicly disclosing their vote, would get a lifetime ban from the Union.