A New Kind of Democracy
For the record, I object to democracy in all forms, believing it to be tyranny-by-majority. However I have a better idea about how it can be done. Inspiration for this thread comes from a speech given by Richard Ault.
Suppose we have three major parties and a 55%/30%/15% voter split. Let's call them Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian respectively. All the voters go and vote.
Under the current system, the Republicans get 100% of the control of the office in question, with the other two getting a total of 0% control.
How about a system where we might split that office into say, a council of 20. In that case, the council would have 11 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 3 Libertarians. The votes would be totalled from all voters who the council will have power over, without dividing them into voting districts which go 100% in any one direction.
This would have a number of advanages.
1. Minority parties would still have some say in how they are governed, unlike the current system.
2. Totalling all votes would end the practice of gerrymandering.
3. Voters would have a more moderate selection of candidates.
Let me expand upon the third, it might seem like a nonsequitur.
Each party would get 20 potential candidates lined up for the office, and choose what order the candidates would be elected in.
The Republicans would know they have about half of the voters anyways. But if they put 20 Tom Delays on their lineup, they'd turn off moderate voters. They would put the Tom Delays, the crazy extremists, at the front of the line to make sure they get into power, but as they got further down the lineup, Republican voters might think "I'd rather have a moderate democrat than another Tom Delay on the council." Thus, the Republican party would put moderates on the lineup as well in an attempt to alienate fewer voters. And the Democrats would put the Clintons and Fienstiens on their front line, but after that they might put more moderate candidates to attract Republicans that aren't as crazy as Delay.
In that way, all the parties would be competing to bring the best candidates to the voters, giving them a better selection of candidates. Voters would have fewer problems with voting for the "lesser of two evils" because they know their party is going to have approximately as much power anyways and they aren't voting for political wingnuts. They can express dissatisfaction with their own party without imperiling losing the office 100% to someone worse.
Does anyone else here think this would be a better system than what we have now?