Open primaries would seem like the more feasible alternative to those you have suggested. Additionally, the process is underway with twenty-four states having degrees of openness in the presidential primaries. Allow that process to expand to the legislative branch. The objections of dilution and clown stacking by the opposition haven't materialized.
There is a better alternative that's not merely theoretical, but widespread: a parliament, in which somewhat narrow voter preferences (collections of many correlated policy interests) are each able to gain representation, and then these narrower groups are rather freely able to negotiate larger coalitions.
"An extremist minority may yet constitute 'a majority of the majority'. In this way, the party primary system risks empowering clowns even when the median voter (of the general electorate) is broadly reasonable."
"Clown" is perhaps not the best term for extremists that constitute a plurality of the majority. After all, considering that you're a moderate utilitarian, your own position is wildly more radical than that of virtually any politician in America.
What change could most improve American democracy? For the changes Richard suggests to be made possible.
The political parties that win elections have no interest in changing and every interest in retaining the current way of doing things. Political parties are in so many cases the gatekeepers to what is democracy. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Certainly not the demos.
Looking at American politics from the UK, the amount of money spent in election after election suggests that it is money well spent by those (few) who put it up. Is that democracy?
The Supreme Court has alot of power. Wade v Roe 1973 was a decision made by a few unelected lawyers, and led to decades of the sort of bad-tempered conflict and violence Richard would block people for on this platform. Why don't the people get to elect them?
I know that Richard doesn't like obtuse discussion of semantics, but the meaning of democracy in America is limited to a few things Kapital permits so long as it is left alone to do what it wants. Even then, Kapital appears to have a large say in the agenda of δημοκρατία, don't you think?
Not sure why you think ranked choice voting would be too complicated for the public. It was used by the students' union at my alma mater and it worked just fine (granted, the set of students who vote in their uni elections is a narrow, and perhaps atypically politically literate, demographic, but even so...).
Open primaries would seem like the more feasible alternative to those you have suggested. Additionally, the process is underway with twenty-four states having degrees of openness in the presidential primaries. Allow that process to expand to the legislative branch. The objections of dilution and clown stacking by the opposition haven't materialized.
There is a better alternative that's not merely theoretical, but widespread: a parliament, in which somewhat narrow voter preferences (collections of many correlated policy interests) are each able to gain representation, and then these narrower groups are rather freely able to negotiate larger coalitions.
"An extremist minority may yet constitute 'a majority of the majority'. In this way, the party primary system risks empowering clowns even when the median voter (of the general electorate) is broadly reasonable."
"Clown" is perhaps not the best term for extremists that constitute a plurality of the majority. After all, considering that you're a moderate utilitarian, your own position is wildly more radical than that of virtually any politician in America.
What change could most improve American democracy? For the changes Richard suggests to be made possible.
The political parties that win elections have no interest in changing and every interest in retaining the current way of doing things. Political parties are in so many cases the gatekeepers to what is democracy. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Certainly not the demos.
Looking at American politics from the UK, the amount of money spent in election after election suggests that it is money well spent by those (few) who put it up. Is that democracy?
The Supreme Court has alot of power. Wade v Roe 1973 was a decision made by a few unelected lawyers, and led to decades of the sort of bad-tempered conflict and violence Richard would block people for on this platform. Why don't the people get to elect them?
I know that Richard doesn't like obtuse discussion of semantics, but the meaning of democracy in America is limited to a few things Kapital permits so long as it is left alone to do what it wants. Even then, Kapital appears to have a large say in the agenda of δημοκρατία, don't you think?
Not sure why you think ranked choice voting would be too complicated for the public. It was used by the students' union at my alma mater and it worked just fine (granted, the set of students who vote in their uni elections is a narrow, and perhaps atypically politically literate, demographic, but even so...).