The fundamental problem is this semi-feudal system of local control of national elections, which is probably unique to the US.
This makes it practically impossible to bring about any substantial reform or modernisation of the system. The mechanics of the voting system, like first-past-the-post may be 19th century, but that is far from the biggest problem. Having a feudal system of local jurisdiction over elections creates all kinds of complex hurdles to reform.
For instance, to move from first-past-the-post to preferential voting would render all the machinery obsolete. All these great clunky machines would be useless, which would cost all these local authorities a fortune to replace. So they would much rather stick with the machinery they have, even though that means sticking with the outmoded voting system. On another level, a move towards electing the members of the electoral college by proportional representation would severely politically disadvantage any of the states that moved in that direction earlier. In the practical sense that it would reduce their electoral impact comparatively with other states, unless it was done simultaneously across the country. But there is no practical way of doing that. Not to mention being complicated to achieve in the context of keeping all the local feudal princelings on side. They would fight tooth and nail to defend their local power base and oppose any reform which undermined that.
The more you think about it, the more impossible it seems to achieve any meaningful reform of the US electoral system. Within the system that is.
Maybe what it needs is outside intervention? Someone needs to invade the US and impose democracy on you by force? We'll have to see how that goes in Iraq. Obviously its something of a worry that those claiming to be in Iraq to impose democracy on the natives don't seem to have a very good track record themselves though. So the likelihood of Iraq establishing a good precedent for imposing democracy is extremely slim.
Historically, it always requires a revolution to overthrow feudalism. So we should be looking to support any capitalist reform of the US electoral system.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 9:30 AM -0400 25/10/04, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>In most countries it is called run off elections and makes sense - it first
>gives people a chance to express their preference and then gives them a
>second chance if their first choice does not face any real chance of being
>elected. The only better alternative is the instant run off voting
>http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ in which voters rank order their preference, so
>no second run is necessary.
>
>One of the unquestioned benefits of the run off system is that prevents
>spoilers, like Ralph Nader and scores of other moronic "third parties" that
>pop up like poisonous mushrooms every four years, to split the vote and
>deliver the election to one of the two big parties, usually Republicans.
>
>So contrary to the crocodile tears sheared by the loose cannon "third
>parties" - Prop 62 can actually weaken the hands of the Democrats and Repugs
>by removing a powerful tool of undercutting their opponents by vote
>splitting.
>
>Every sensible political reform minded person should support any political
>initiative (e.g. Prop 62) to establish a run off system.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk