So, I thought of this method of voting that doesn't eliminate the party system, but rather ensures that the result better represents the people:

 

Topics.

 

Here's the idea; every party has very blatant stances on every major issue, and odds are, you don't agree with all of them. So instead, why not present voting as a series of multiple choice questions? It could cover the most important long term and short term topics of the election.

But rather than voting 'Republican' or 'Democrat' or 'NDP' or WHATEVER

You just get options. You have no way of knowing WHICH party you are voting for with each question (And there would have to be laws against parties telling people which answer to choose before the vote) you just get what you WANT. Then, the party that has the highest ratio of votes on one topic is put in charge of that section, with the other parties as advisers, people who vote on topics brought forth by those in charge and such.

 

What I feel this could accomplish:

-Make politics more clear cut:

You're no longer voting for the party who may maybe do a few of the things you want, you're voting for a group of people who will... I dunno, decrease taxes at the expense of taxi corporations, I don't even know. But it'd be clear what you're getting in to.

 

-Eliminate one sided bias:

By making the options nameless, they would need to be judged on their own merits. You can't just say 'Oh, it's X Party, I vote for that'

 

-Smear Campaigns more difficult:

Since the voters won't know exactly who they are voting for, it'd be more difficult to simply say 'X party is bad, don't vote for them because one of their members smoked marijuana!'

 

(Additionally, I was thinking there could be options for people without strong opinions on a subject, something that lets you give your vote to the leader, or to help bring two groups closer to a tie)

But you have a lot of variations on what people might want.

For example let's face the subject of NASA's budget

I personally think it should be increased and focused on human landings on Mars

others might support an increased budget with a focus on human landings on the Moon

an increased budget for non-human exploration

decreased funding with a focus on spacial risks to Earth

scrapping NASA entirely etc.

 

Also this approach doesn't account for priorities, to use a completely non-political example let's say this approach is used for lunch.

I can have either water or milk to drink

A Peanut Butter and Jelly or Turkey Sandwich

and a cookie or a brownie as dessert

Where Water, PB&J, and cookie are option A and Milk, Turkey, and brownie are option B.

If I really want a PB&J but select milk, PB&J, and a brownine I don't get what I wanted most.

 

The best option in my opinion is a multi-party system, but that can't happen unless both parties shatter, otherwise the one that didn't would take complete control, or near enough to make no difference.

But you have a lot of variations on what people might want.

For example let's face the subject of NASA's budget

I personally think it should be increased and focused on human landings on Mars

others might support an increased budget with a focus on human landings on the Moon

an increased budget for non-human exploration

decreased funding with a focus on spacial risks to Earth

scrapping NASA entirely etc.

 

Also this approach doesn't account for priorities, to use a completely non-political example let's say this approach is used for lunch.

I can have either water or milk to drink

A Peanut Butter and Jelly or Turkey Sandwich

and a cookie or a brownie as dessert

Where Water, PB&J, and cookie are option A and Milk, Turkey, and brownie are option B.

If I really want a PB&J but select milk, PB&J, and a brownine I don't get what I wanted most.

 

The best option in my opinion is a multi-party system, but that can't happen unless both parties shatter, otherwise the one that didn't would take complete control, or near enough to make no difference.

 

Ah, see, this is still operating under normal political standards. You still only get to choose what the parties offer, but this would be a better way of getting stuff done in a less biased way.

The fact of the matter is, on a large scale, we don't really have the means to take into account what people want MOST, just what's wanted BEST

Ah, see, this is still operating under normal political standards. You still only get to choose what the parties offer, but this would be a better way of getting stuff done in a less biased way.

The fact of the matter is, on a large scale, we don't really have the means to take into account what people want MOST, just what's wanted BEST

 

But that limits you to two options, eliminating write-in options, and in complicated situations it can get especially murky.

But under the present situation, to again reference my example if I really want a PB&J I can order option A, as opposed to hoping I get what I want.

But that limits you to two options, eliminating write-in options, and in complicated situations it can get especially murky.

But under the present situation, to again reference my example if I really want a PB&J I can order option A, as opposed to hoping I get what I want.

 

My idea is to be MORE explicit than current forms though.

Instead of voting for, for the sake of analogy, a chef who MIGHT make you a PBJ, you would instead be saying 'I want PBJ' but you wouldn't know who the chef is

The idea is not not have extra baggage attached to something, but instead spell it out clearly to a voter. Admittedly, this could get complex with some issues.

But here's the basic idea:

You have a question; the hot topic of this election has been potato chip sales, and related health concerns (I saw a bag of chips and ran with it )

you could have five options (The actual number would be different in the actual situation, but this is for simplicity)

You choose between:

 

Ban all chip sales

Regulate chip sales

Keep chips the same

Increase chip sales

Ban chips that couldn't reach a certain health requirement

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? I mean, if the point is to vote for our nation's leader, a lot of people don't care what party the person is from. My grandparents are democrats and they voted for McCain in 2008. One of my Dad's friends is very strongly republican and he voted for Obama. The political parties really don't matter much when voting. The government released a statistic saying in 2008, Obama received 98% of the black vote. And I'm pretty sure a bunch of them were republicans, who were honestly only voting for him because he was black. People don't mind ignoring the parties, and if the presidential candidate is going to be part of a party, then after he/she is elected, one party is still in control. And honestly, I think you wouldn't be able to find a majority vote on my most of those issues. Abortion is a pretty big one, so let's say that's a question on it. What if the results come back:

Abortion should always be allowed: 30%

Abortion should never be allowed: 30%

Abortion should only be allowed if in a court of law it is determined to be necessary: 10%

Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape: 30%

If you picked one of the 30%s, you'd end up angering a good portion of the population. Or if you only left it at two choices

Abortion should always be allowed: 50%

Abortion should never be allowed: 50%

Then half of the population would be upset. Even if it was more even, like 40% and 60%, a great number of Americans would be pissed.

While the system we have currently may be flawed, they're flaws people are willing to put up with.

Or we could get the candidates and play Russian Roulette.

I love this idea. Politics isnt chaotic enough now. Lets do this system. Then people will be debating over what questions are on the ballet and which ones end up getting left out. People will be getting their titties in a wrap when they think an answer that goes to their candidate was phrased in a derogatory manner. The voting turnout will drastically drop and that will be a huge issue too. It will quickly be labeled a literacy test of the modern era. After all, not all countries are monolingual and marking a name can be done by anyone who speaks any language. Have questions instead and, even if you offer it in several languages, you cant account for every language spoken in one country. And lets just throw out the trust factor too. Elections should be about what issues you believe, not whether you trust the person to get them done.

 

Hatok for voting reform.

How could you be sure that the person your choices matched actually fits the selection?

My idea is to be MORE explicit than current forms though.

Instead of voting for, for the sake of analogy, a chef who MIGHT make you a PBJ, you would instead be saying 'I want PBJ' but you wouldn't know who the chef is

The idea is not not have extra baggage attached to something, but instead spell it out clearly to a voter. Admittedly, this could get complex with some issues.

But here's the basic idea:

You have a question; the hot topic of this election has been potato chip sales, and related health concerns (I saw a bag of chips and ran with it )

you could have five options (The actual number would be different in the actual situation, but this is for simplicity)

You choose between:

• Ban all chip sales
• Regulate chip sales
• Keep chips the same
• Increase chip sales
• Ban chips that couldn't reach a certain health requirement

But if we continue to have two parties, maybe three in small situation corresponding, for simplicities sake to options1, 2 & 3, and most people decide to vote 5 then who would that go to?

And the problem with the chef is that I've selected more choices from chef B, so that's who I'll get, even if I'm allergic to turkey, and so have to have something else.

Even though this may not be totally relevant I just want to say that the U.S. President is nowhere near as important as many other political positions, and that's one that is voted for. Supreme Court Justice is not voted for and is the most powerful position, yet many have no idea what that is. Relevant point: hatok's voting idea is good, but many people will probably choose not to vote if that was the design.

I agree, politics in Western countries is a joke. The majority of voters just treat it as a popularity contest, voting for the leader based on who's smear campaign they've been affected by.

We need to get people to get involved in learning about candidates voting the way we do now before we can contemplate this as an option.