Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

> Yep.  Multicandidate voting solves much of this.  Approval solves it
> most satisfactorily.  In a large scale approval voting system, there
> are typically 5-6 viable candidates, such as when the U.N. elects the
> secretary general.

> America is a little behind in the "democracy" game right now, and
> things may get worse before people wake up... but we're going to catch
> up ... and we will, again, emerge as leaders.

It seems to me that there is both a philosophical and a practical
issue at stake here. The philosophical issue is the "one man, one
vote" system of participation in the political system.  I'm not sure
why I should think that allowing individuals multiple votes should be
thought inherently superior to picking the one person you think best
suited from among the candidates on the ballot to fill the one seat
available.

The practical issue, however, is perhaps the "deal killer" on this
idea.  At present, the reason it makes sense to limit people to one
vote per race is that in nearly all elections-- state legislature,
governor, other state-wide offices, US House, US Senate, and
President-- there is only one seat open.  Moving to an approval system
of election means moving to a parlimintary system of government.  How
would this work for 285 million people in the United States? It would,
at the least, vastly expand the size of the US House of
Representatives and the US Senate. To the extent that this would make
legislating inefficient and near-impossible, I would approve.  But,
there are other problems.  Such a system could well eliminate most of
the meaningful differences between the House and Senate in congress,
and if carried to the full parlimintary model would eliminate the
distinction between the executive and legislative branches.

What we're talking about here is a wholesale change in the
philosophical foundations of the American Republic.  Republic....
hmmm.... <grin> That brings me to my last point.  Our system was
EXPLICITLY intended to AVOID being a democracy. The founders feared
the excesses of a democracy just as much as they feared the tyrrany of
an authoritarian king or central government.  I hope we never lead the
world in the "democracy game."  We are a constitutional republic...
protecting the rights of the people and states by keeping as much
power as possible, as "low" as possible:  rights reserved to the
people, rights reserved to the states,  both people AND states
represented in the legislature,  the chief executive (President)
elected by a combination of the people and the states (electoral
college).  The intent was a federal government strong enough to do
what only a federal government can-- war and peace, treaties,
interstate and international commerce, money, and a few other things--
yet still weak enough not to threaten the rights of the people and the
states.

Of course, we've weakened that structure considerably through the
popular election of senators... but the movement should be BACK toward
the Republic designed by the founders, not "forward" toward even more
democracy.

"... progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be.  If
you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any
nearer.  If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about
turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who
turns back soonest is the most progressive ... Going back is the
quickest way on."