That is why I ask the question cause I don't see any way, short of a second Revolution, to do it. Not enough people are willing to vote third party to make a difference at this point in time and the two parties in power have way to much media influence as well as educational influence to spread the word about voting for who you trukly support no matter what you think their chances are. Independents are so rarely elected that I can only name one Governor who was an independent, Jessie Ventura. We need more independents and thrid party candidates to get elected.

We will have a two-party system as long as we have a first-past-the-post voting system. I'm getting tired of explaining this.

I think you'd have to start locally and build up from there. If the Widget Party can elect people at the local and state level and demonstrate competence and integrity and intelligence, then maybe it can gain momentum nationally.

@Invictus - So how do we do away with that?

Simple, Draug.

Everybody start voting Republican. Then we only have one party. Solved.

It starts at the regional level Draug. Get enough local and state level members elected, then move on to Congressmen. If you can destroy the Democratic and Republican machines at the town and county level, you can start to see results

But i'd love a more ordered voting system, where instead of one vote, you list candidates in order of preference. That might be able to help

51 constitutional amendments at least, for starters. Federal and every state. And then there's the question of what to replace it with. Instant run-off? Party list proportional? Cumulative voting? It's a gargantuan task and will never happen. And what would the difference be? We'd just end up with a right and left coalition like in Europe. Is that radically different than the big-tent parties we have now?

And actuaslly, we don't have a first past the post system. We have a farthest past the post on most elections. Plenty are decided by the candidate with the most votes but who didn't get a clear majority. Only the presidency, that I'm aware of, has a second level of voting (well third if you consider the C) beyond the initial vote if he hasn't taken a majority (say a tie or a thrid party gets a few electoral votes and takes a state to force it to congress).

But then which do you choose, goldfinger? The candidate the most people hate least? The one that has the most people who love him?

Our current system approximates the latter, and I think there's an argument to be made for it.

Alright Yankees, the correct answer to Draug's question was "the German model". Thanks all for playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliament#Distribution_of_seats_in_the_Bundestag

Draugnar, winning the most votes is what first-past-the-post is. It's what we have everywhere, but since the system leads to a two-party system the winner basically always gets a majority since there are only two candidates with wide support.

Ah shoot Invictus actually gave the correct answer already. That always happens when I post too fast. Sorry. :-)

(read the wiki though :-) )

Yeah.

I actually am not convinced we should leave the two party system. There's a steep price to pay, which is the chaos and frustration of coalition governments. I mean, this isn't the case if there were NO parties, but that's just never going to happen.

But I hear all this stuff about Denmark having all these different parties and this party works with that party unless it is no longer convenient then they switch sides and that is what I *want*. I want us to represent the many facets that are the people of our great nation. I want the people to be heard, not the mouthpieces put up by the backers of the big tents. Imagine if Romney and Obama and HClinton (Hillary) and McClain had all been on the '08 ballot in November along with the other independent/third party candidates. Would it have been turmoil? Possibly, but (especially with the multi-tier runoffs mentioned above) the result would not have been as divisive to our nation.

No, invictus, first-past-the-post is a reference to horse racing wher the post is fixed - a majority. Furhtest past the post is what we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

@invictus:

It could be quite radicaly different. Coalitions fluctuate on individual issues. It's a lot easier to convince a 5% minority to see things your way than a 49% minority - so things could actually get done.

It is true, however, that making any sort of change in that direction would be extremely difficult. We'd need a constitutional amendment, right? Dems and Reps aren't gonna do it voluntarily - both parties would fight that kind of proposal. They'll only get behind it if they see they'll be replaced entirely if they don't. And THAT is up to an educated and motivated electorate, which America is very sadly lacking on both the left and the right.

We're screwed no matter what.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Your own link shows that you're wrong. First-past-the-post is a synonym for winner-take-all.

That's for Draugnar, of course.

Well, Draug, actually a run-off election system can be shown to do just as bad a job as a majority-winner system at representing the people's will.

Say that there are three candidates, A, B, and C. 40% of people like A, followed by B, then C. 31% of people like C, followed by B, then A. 29% of people like B, followed by A, then C. They vote. A gets 40%, C gets 31%, B gets 29%. So there's a runoff between A and C. A wins with 69% of the vote.

But guess what? 60% of the populace would have preferred B.

I'm not sure what you're saying Draug. FPTP is the electoral college, first to 270 takes it home. No need for *furthest* past the post since only 1 candidate can achieve that.

In other elections, there is no post, it's a simple majority.

Did I miss something?

The solution is voluntarism.

Really? Here is a quote from that page...

"The term first past the post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) was coined as an analogy to horse racing, where the winner of the race is the first to pass a particular point (the "post") on the track (in this case a plurality of votes), after which all other runners automatically and completely lose (that is, the payoff is "winner-takes-all"). There is, however, no "post" that the winning candidate must pass in order to win, as the winning candidate is required only to have received the highest number of votes in his or her favour. This results in the alternative name sometimes being "farthest past the post"."

Seems to me the term, as used, is used incorrectly. We have, as I said, a *farthest* past the post because no actual post is set. The post would be a majority.

But with a farthest past the post, we should be able to have three and four way competition.

YJ, I think Draug's point is that it's not simple majority, it's simple plurality.

I'm going to watch Draug derail his own thread now.

"A first-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) election is one that is won by the candidate with more votes than any other(s). It is a common, but not universal, feature of democratic political systems with single-member legislative districts, and generally results over time with a two-party competition."

Three things to do:

1.) Refine Electoral College so that a majority isn't required.
2.) Remove debate entrance requirements of 15% popular polls.
3.) Find a way (this is the hard one) to make Congress and the current two-party system abandon their efforts to stay in power and instead work toward the good of the nation.

While a third party could help #3 in a big way, a third party can't emerge until that is at least being attempted. #2 is very simple, and if anyone remembers Ross Perot, he made waves when he made it into the Clinton debate. #1 is controversial but I believe it is necessary to reform a bit no matter what the intention is… simply said, Al Gore and Mitt Romney should have had much closer runs at the Presidency than they did.

A quote from the TOP of the first-past-the-post wiki article. Good God, Draugnar learn to read.