Remember: Up / Downvoting in this community is not an agree / disagree button. We upvote good or constructive conversation and downvote off-topic posts or badly-voiced opinions. If you disagree, you respond like a human in good faith and prove out your position.
The amount of “left-right” entrenchment seems to be at an all-time high and increasing.
No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, what would it take to get you to vote for a new party?
Would implementing a better electoral system that would eliminate the two-party see-saw and allowing for more granularity in candidates help (See Single Transferable Vote or STAR depending on the type of election)?
Do you have other solutions to this issue?
deleted by creator
This also seems to be far too complicated a system in an environment where people frequently can’t figure out that putting an X in a box is how you select a candidate (or whatever in the system in use in the county you’re in). Keep in mind that most people in the USA vote for “their” party (even when they’re “independents”) and would be hard-pressed to even name a policy from “their” party if pressed.
Proportional representation is what I advocate.
Yes, this means perennially-minority governments that have to form a coalition government to govern. I view this as a good thing.
In a de facto two-party system like the USA, there is nothing that fixing the voting structure will solve. (Even in the slightly-more-diverse politics of Canada the system is still pretty broken.) Not even fixing the nomination structure (the source of most of the evils of the American approach) would solve things in the long run. The reason is simple: in a (de facto) two-party system—or even the de facto 3-4 party system of Canada—there is zero incentive to cooperate, and a huge incentive to be “the party of ‘no’” when not in power.
A proportional system looks like chaos to the outside world used to black-and-white thinking, but I submit that such systems force politicians to do something they are literally incapable of doing in a two-party system without slitting their own throats in the process: compromise. Coalition governments have two or more parties, typically, who are roughly compatible with each other in the large details, but who disagree in small things (methods, approaches, minor issues, etc.). But if any of those parties want to retain power instead of getting tossed out at the next vote of confidence, they have to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults: compromising on small things to keep the big thing together.
And in the end that’s how countries survive: the people at large, by the example of their leadership, compromise on the small things to keep the big thing (society) together.
Been idling in the volunteer chat for the “Our Canadian Future” Party – formerly known as the Centre Ice Canadians. They seem to be solidly focused on pragmatic centrism, while still trying to be big tent enough to pull from all walks. I hate the name, but every interaction I’ve had with them so far seems like they are trying to do things logically and thoughtfully, even if they never get anyone elected.
Policy framework (general direction – these are not official documents yet. Those will need to be ratified by members eventually). https://www.ourcanadianfuture.ca/policy
There’s a good chat with retired General Hillier here: https://www.ourcanadianfuture.ca/events
Some media coverage:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/centre-ice-canadians-looking-to-form-political-party-1.6839129
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-canadian-future-a-party-for-losers
I particularly like that the right is already attacking it publicly. I suspect they’re worried about vote losing the pragmatic right wing to a centrist party that isn’t the Liberals. When in reality most of the people voting OCF will be coming from the Liberals.
Huh! I hadn’t heard of them before, but I like the policies I’m seeing there.
I agree that I kinda hate the name (and their website).
I’m big on pragmatism, so it’s nice to see people trying something real with it. I wonder if I’d be able to run locally under the banner… Hmmm…
Any party that doesn’t attract the “You agree with me or you’re my enemy,” types would get my attention. I think a party that focuses more on smart policy that’s good for the people at large as opposed to empty ideology and vote posturing over contentious issues would attract me. We need people to run the country, not win some kind of high school popularity contest.
The first party that offers the following as their platform will get, not just my vote, but my membership dues and time, even if it means risking that a truly horrible party/leader gets in under our current system.
The world does not remain static. Although there are some foundational principles that can remain static, the constitution should be something that evolves with the world.
There is ample evidence that voting systems can be optimized to ensure that the preferences of the people are reflected in the governing bodies. Current recommendations are that we implement <this> or <that>.
There is ample evidence that sortition based citizen assemblies have a positive impact on policy and governance. There is some evidence that such assemblies may in fact be all the governance required.
There is ample evidence that the very structure of our society and economy are major determinants of poverty, health, population numbers, violent crime, property crime, employment, and innovation.
Under our current system, businesses are dictatorships with little more than profit underlying decisions. Government is not a business, but a service to the citizenry. As such, decisions should be made with service as the motive, not profit.
We will work towards identifying and implementing systems and policies that follow existing and emerging evidence whether we are in power or not. In fact, we pledge to work hard enough while not in power that we not only influence the policies of whoever is in power, but are ready to hit the ground running should we form the government.
