Do we need something like alternative voting?

[johnd83]

I know that this referendum in Britain was a while ago and was defeated, but I wonder if this is what we need to break the two part system. Right now it is too risky to break up into smaller factions, so we are stuck with two parties that are too easily manipulated by big money. More, smaller parties might be more independent. Also, money doesn't really significantly change public opinion, it just "tips the balance". If there were a spectrum of candidates it might be harder to push through the awful congressmen we have gotten recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

Edit: my point isn't that the Democratic party itself is bad but that the argument over how to run the country is not a two-sided issue. Oversimplification is allowing money to manipulate us (think culture-wars).

[LWolf]

1. We need 100% publicly financed elections,

guaranteed equal, and equally neutral, press time, debates that allow all participants to answer all questions and guarantee equal talk time, AND

some version of IRV.

[PeaceNikki]

2. I am a Democrat and I will continue to support Democrats

Also, this is Democratic Underground

[johnd83]

6. Deciding how to run the country is not a two-sided issue

and right now the left-right divide is very right of center. The party itself may not be bad but it is oversimplified.

[PeaceNikki]

7. You won't convince me.

I am in Wisconsin and there is a clear delineation between good and evil.

[johnd83]

8. The current "tea party" is an unholy alliance between the christian and economic right

AV may cause that alliance to break and that would be the best thing that could happen to this county. It never made sense having Christians and the Ann Rand crowd on the same page. Together they have close to or just over a majority.

[johnd83]

9. Also, good luck with the recall!

You guys in Wisconsin got the biggest bait-and-switch con with the 2010 election.

[sixmile]

3. Saturday voting

or, dare I say, Sunday voting?!

[snot]

4. I agree: "too big to fail" is a problem re- parties as it is with nearly everything else.

I do believe we need to recognize that there is merit in forcing almost ANY kind of organization, once it gets too big, to break up.

Because whether it's a bank or other corporation, or a government, or a union, or whatever it is, once it reaches a certain size, it becomes unaccountable to those at the bottom, untransparent, and vulnerable to hijacking by sociopaths – and so powerful that there can be no effective checks and balances on it.

It's not a judgment on the Dems or anyone else; it's a matter of systems theory.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. The current system guarantees that the establishment always wins. K&R