has to happen first, and would be genuine reform tending towards a truer democracy than the shambles we have at present. If that were to happen, the two party system would fall on its own.
But I think, given our constitution, that the development of a two party system is actually pretty organic, and is as democratic a system as possible without seriously amending the constitution along the lines you suggest in your second graph. Two parties (generally) means the candidates with the most votes wins (except when the Supreme Court intervenes). Under the current system, all a third party would do is siphon votes away from that party most closely aligned with it ideologically. Thus, a minority ideology could well dominate the government indefinitely, and elections would not represent anything resembling a majority viewpoint. Or I should say would be even worse than what we have now. Add in fourth, fifth, sixth parties, and the possible permutations get me dizzy.
The US Constitution was state of the art politics--in 1789. Since then I think we've made significant progress in political science, as in all science. A system of electoral run-offs, or a representative parliamentary system, would be much more democratic. But worship of the current constitution is as deeply bred into the American electorate as any other form of religion. And anyway, anything like a new constitutional convention, given the current realities of our politics, would most likely end in a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
So we deal with what we have. If Clinton is elected I think she'll appoint justices who will reverse Citizens United, which was a horrid decision without legal precedent. That would be an enormous help. Overturning the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act would be another great thing.
Federalizing elections would be another good step--making requirements for ballot access and registration equal across the board. I'd also love to see us do what they do in several European countries--declare election day a national holiday so working people have an equal chance to vote, or even expand election day to encompass a full three days, for the same effect.
The first Tuesday in November is another holdover from the 1780s--when voting in November made sense in a society where the vast majority of voters lived on farms and were busy with the harvest until winter weather set in, and took a full day or more to reach a polling place. (Couldn't travel on Sunday--blue laws--had to leave Monday morning at the earliest). The point is, the November date was set to enable MORE people to vote, whereas now it acts to keep people who work 9 to 5 on Tuesdays away.
Just as an aside: Trump scares the shit out of me.
Best wishes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
