Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: For that matter, even winning a Congress seat is extremely hard because the two parties send some of their money down to their party members at lower levels for them to run, too. Just this year there was a special election in Georgia for a congressional seat. The two parties combined for over $50m in spending. For just one of Georgia's 12 seats, and one of the US' 435 seats.

Yeah, I'd also get rid of that "only one seat" principle with all that gerrymandered voting districts. I would solve that by just abandoning those. Instead you'd get statewide lists, and all seats going to that states are filled according to that lists and the votes parties get in one state-wide election.
As soon as you vote for each seat individually, you have the two-party system, meaning a third party cannot win anything essential (like a seat). If all 12 Georgia seats were filled by one statewide election, roughly 8.5% of votes would constitute a seat, and the state's electorals' wishes would be represented way more accurately. And new powers would stand a chance, have a path to relevance. At least that's how I feel, but of course I'm accustomed to just that.

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Unless you can make some major campaign finance reform

Oh sure, that needs to be done first and foremost. I do not see a political will though, including the public. I loudly wonder about this here every other week.

(10-17-2017, 03:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You might feel a bit difference on the wonderful feeling if each of the different areas in Austria had their own Constitution, and you had some extremist A-holes in some far away region deciding what should happen to your region, simply because your region isn't extremist or populous enough to stop theirs from deciding everything that will happen to you, for you.

I mean, the best example I can think that you'd understand is... could you imagine if every country in the EU went to a straight collective popular vote to decide a single leader for the EU? Though I guess it wouldn't be that different from it is now, where it seems like Germany pretty much runs the EU.

Point taken.
Is it so different now though? I get you're not quite the fan of Californian policy proposals, and fair enough, the example is valid in itself. But I could also understand a Californian saying his vote is downgraded by the system, as in an Ohio vote is way more valuable than their own vote (the Ohion vote actually is way more decisive in a tradtional swing state). And thinking about it, this is hard to refute. You're not the European Union, that doesn't have anything like a president and a parliament with legislative power the way America has.
Plus, you still have the Senate. And that this system favours states over electorates is obvious. California gets two Senators, the two Dakotas get four, there's nothing more to say to underline that point. The fairness of that is hard to grasp, unless you emphasize on a strong federalist alignment. But I feel the existence of the current Senate takes that into account and kind of uses up this aspect. Congress could very well be more for all people and not so much for all states without the states losing too much power (through the Senate and the Constitution).

Also, I think directly voting for a president is a bad idea to begin with. Congress should vote for one after big Congress elections. That way, a president can always work with a majority and get things passed (unless the majority is a republican one and the president is Trump, of course. But even though current events seem to contradict me, I still think that is a valid point).

(10-17-2017, 03:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A two party system is the most stable way of providing choice. There's no coalitions that come and go that theoretically cause more turmoil or political instability. 

That said, I think our system can withstand the increased uncertainty of a multi party system.

Well, after having the coice between Trump and Hillary I have serious doubts if you can keep this stance.
I'm not saying you should adapt the European system, which also has its flaws. Yours, however, drove half the population away from the voting booth. Additional political forces would do your country good, I believe.