Why isn't Electoral Reform part of the Democratic agenda?

[ludwigb]

I am specifically thinking of IRV. There is an small but significant number of 3rd party enthusiasts who might come over to our side if we added general support for IRV to our national platform. In any case, supporting IRV would take away the only reasonable case I see for voting Green.

[tom_paine]

1. BBV before IRV, but you are absolutely correct

Kerry isn't "challenging the Matrix" in the same way as Clark (Wes) and Dean did.

And though I am an ardent Kerry supporter and have been doing everything in my power to help him, I am very concerned at this.

[ludwigb]

2. The question at hand is WHY

Why is IRV not a topic? I read once that Dean once voiced support for IRV... why didn't he bring it up in the debates?

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. IRV is not the best choice

but it is still better than what we've got.

Why isn't the DNC bringing it up? Too scared at the thought of losing a little power to independent and third party candidates is my guess.

If you haven't done so, please vote in the polls on my website concerning voting reform. :)

[mulethree]

4. Good Solution

IRV = Instant Runoff Voting, you cast a first choice vote and a second choice vote. If your first choice does not win the election then your second choice vote is used instead.

So someone can vote Green/Dem or Nader/Kerry and when the Greens and Naders loose, then the Dems and Kerrys get those votes.

Lets peoples voices be heard that they like the ideas of Greens and Naders, without risking a Bush victory. A real voice instead of just a choice between two candidates who are both relatively Conservative and Centrist. Could double voter turnout.

I think the democratic party doesn't support it because it would soon erode the power of the two current parties. So it's good for America and democracy, yet can't get any backing because of status-quo preservation of power.

I would love to see Nader offer to drop off the Ballots in exchange for a promise from one or both major parties - to enact IRV. It would be in his supporter's best interest.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. However IRV is not necessarily more likely

to help third parties take office, which is a point that is important to some of us.

Also, there is still a spoiler factor in IRV. If too many folks rank the Greens or another small thrid party first, the Repubs could gain a win in the first round, therefore rendering all of the second place Dem votes moot. :(

Condorcet would be a better way to do ranked voting, but it would be a hard sell in towns liek mine where we use paper ballots and do hand counts.

[mulethree]

7. Love your website

Explains this stuff well, and ... has other good stuff

Thanks

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Thanks :)

[SoCalDem]

5. Because they have incumbents as well..

IRV does not favor incumbency..

What's really needed is term limits.. I know that people around here hate the idea, but the reason we have term limits on the presidency , is to LIMIT the POWER..

Is there ever a valid reason why a guy like strom thurmond serves for FORTY SEVEN consecutive years??? I say NO..

Generational changes MUST be addressed, and that will never happen as long as the rich old ones with all the money control their own destiny..

The founding fathers did NOT favor parties for this very reason... they felt that ordinary citizens would, out of love of country, sign on to serve for a time, and then go back to their lives..

We have 535 legislators...our of nearly 300 MILLION people.. That is actually too low of a number to start with, and then there's the fact that so many of them NEVER LEAVE.. They spend most of their time "on the Hill" suckling for more money so they can stay there.. It's all about THEM..and their contributors... It's RARELY about US..

I know that term limits would catch up some of our good ones, but I would gladly sacrifice a few of our good ones, to eliminate the pus-filled maggots on their side..

The presidency should be a single 5 year term..with at least another person's single term in between a second run at it.. Max 10 yrs..

Congresspeople should have 4 yr terms.. 16 yrs max

Senate should have one 8 yr term with at least one term in between a second run.. 16 yrs max

This would allow for real "movement" between the houses and there should also be a "recall" feature built in.. Without the need to constanty raise money, they would be required to actually do what they are there for..legislate.. There should be a mandatory "review" to their state every 2 years.. If their performance is unsatisfactory, they could be recalled..

Public service should be just that...service.. So far we are poorly served..

[mulethree]

8. Imagine a founding father

Trying to get on 50 state ballots, before trains or telegraphs.

Writing the Senate into the constitution, if they new there would be a 50:1 disparity in the populations of different states.

Looking at a pile of law books, needing a Large ladder to even read the titles of most of them. And then another pile of Court decisions which essentially add to that.

I agree on most of your points, but wouldn't want to discourage the likes of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan from lifelong service. But hey what does a sociologist do when he returns to private life? Well besides teaching?

[SoCalDem]

10. A person could still "serve"..just not as a lifelong senator/congressman

They could move between the houses of government, which would allow them to see "all sides".. They could serve 32 years...Is that not a long career??

Of course the "electoral college-of-folly" should go as well.. There is a reason that some states have low populations...No one wants to live there..so why should a state with a million people tops, have 2 senators, when a state like CA or NY has only 2?? That is papently UNFAIR.. There is nothing that goes on in Wyoming, or Utah, or Idaho, Or Montana, that warrants MORE representation.. It's ridiculous that so few people can dictate who the REST of us have to tolerate as president..

These are the same folks who would raise the roof, if the shoe were on the other foot, and yet the rest of us allow ourselves to be dictated to by the "red-loonies"..and they have NO problem at all with accepting money that is generated by the efforts of the many..