Why don't America shift to a multi party system?

That would solve all this

 

In before Betsy. 

 

Also america's political process is pretty much antithetical to more than two parties. There is a reason why when america plays a role in setting up new goverments, the american system is the last thing they used, and why most "modern" political structures prefer a parliamentary system. The executive is pretty much uncheckable outside of the rigidly defined system of  checks and balances, and so there's a huge incentive for parties to combined outright rather than act as a coalition. 

 

In a parliamentary system if the executive can't get consensus of the house then their power is sharply curtailed and in the event of a minority government they're forced to form coalitions. Also depending on the system (for example most of the commonwealth), if a minority government shits the bed, a vote of no confidence can dissolve the the government and the resulting election turns into a sort of referendum on that issue.

 

Under the america's system even if the house spits say 20/40/40 with a three party system, one party still ends up with complete control of the executive.  The senate also screws with this, you can carry the senate with a pathetic amount of the popular vote, which theoretically means that a party can wield far outsized influence there (also the fact the VP gets to break a tie  doesn't help.). If there are two parties that have a somewhat common platform, it's always the better option (at least as far as their winning the election goes. Good for america is another topic)  for them to combine their resources instead of competing. 

 

Basically american politics were "republican democracy 1.0"  that's been patched a couple dozen times to make it mostly work.  But like any 1.0 product, it has quite legacy problems and rough edges. 

 

Lys, I'd like something cleared up, are you saying being gay is a choice?

I stated several times that my position on social issues are personal. I'm not debating the science, nor do I care about the clinical findings, or that a peer review panel took a poll, and by a unanimous show of hands determined that... no, just forget all of that, because I don't care. I can only speak for myself, and I know for a fact that I choose not to be.

 

I have known a few, and I've even been hit on before, but I sincerely don't care enough to even desire to understand it all. People have the right to be gay, but I still have the right to not be. I grew up in military schools in a very different time. I know the next generation is much kinder than mine was.

 

I don't know how being gay is tied into this current trend of men having their dicks chopped off, but having it chopped off doesn't make you a woman... it makes you a man who had his dick chopped off. That is just lunacy to me, so maybe it's all just different degrees of mental illness... but like I said, it's not a part of my life so I really don't care.

 

Thank you for answering my question Lys.  I respect the fact that you don't want to discuss it, and I'll be honest I don't want to derail this topic.

Lys, the reason I asked that question was personal.  I am gay.  Like you I grew up in an era as well as a very parochial society, where being gay was not tolerated and was met with extreme hostility. I struggled for a very long time before I accepted what I am. 

I am heartened to see that you believe I have a right to exist, unlike a number of your fellow Republicans. 

I won't say anything further.

 

 

Lys, I'd like something cleared up, are you saying being gay is a choice?

I stated several times that my position on social issues are personal. I'm not debating the science, nor do I care about the clinical findings, or that a peer review panel took a poll, and by a unanimous show of hands determined that... no, just forget all of that, because I don't care. I can only speak for myself, and I know for a fact that I choose not to be.

 

I have known a few, and I've even been hit on before, but I sincerely don't care enough to even desire to understand it all. People have the right to be gay, but I still have the right to not be. I grew up in military schools in a very different time. I know the next generation is much kinder than mine was.

 

I don't know how being gay is tied into this current trend of men having their dicks chopped off, but having it chopped off doesn't make you a woman... it makes you a man who had his dick chopped off. That is just lunacy to me, so maybe it's all just different degrees of mental illness... but like I said, it's not a part of my life so I really don't care.

 

Thank you for answering my question Lys.  I respect the fact that you don't want to discuss it, and I'll be honest I don't want to derail this topic.

Lys, the reason I asked that question was personal.  I am gay.  Like you I grew up in an era as well as a very parochial society, where being gay was not tolerated and was met with extreme hostility. I struggled for a very long time before I accepted what I am. 

I am heartened to see that you believe I have a right to exist, unlike a number of your fellow Republicans. 

I won't say anything further.

 

Don't worry my friend. I have read very deeply into your posts, and I knew you were either gay or a woman... it didn't matter to me one way or the other. I want nothing more than for you to be happy with your life, and I am absolutely positive that if we ever encountered each other IRL, you would discover immediately that I would never judge you on such a personal matter, especially when it could be so potentially painful... and I think you would be surprised how protective I would be.

 

One thing you deserved from me was an honest response. I can't hide my lack of understanding, but really the most important thing I have learned in all my decades on this planet is I will never understand everything, and it's futile to try. Rest assured you will always have my friendship and respect. You can like cucumbers too, even though I hate them... but I do like dill pickles... figure that one out.

Martha McSally put out a rather cheerful consession speech last night. If you're wondering why she's so okay with it, it's because John McCain's seat was appointed to Jon Kyle on condition he would only fill it until the start of the new year. For Governor Ducey, the obvious choice is Martha McSally. Pretty sure she will get to the Senate anyway. Flake being replaced by Kyrsten Sinema is like Flake keeping the seat, but in the end Republicans will have at least one Senator they can count on from Arizona, and that will be Senator McSally.

 

Why don't America shift to a multi party system?

That would solve all this

 

In before Betsy. 

 

 

Why me?

 

Aside from RH's commentary, a direct cause if a FPTP election, "winner takes all" is an idiotic thing in a democracy, compounded with that in the US most (not all) wins can be done by plurality so offcourse they (the parties) band together into a 50%+1 so they can be "sure" of winning. Meanwhile the fringe parties (green, libertarians, ...) are seen as more as a lifestyle choice. Only plus side you guys have is the lack of "protest votes", or atleast not as frequent as happening here.

 

As for AZ's senate seat, I did enjoy the RNC being annoyed when (ignoring her trumpismy post-primary) McSally didn't go full ham into the "election fraud/steal" screams some other Reps are doing in various other still contested races. Even funnier when AGAIN your president goes into the whole FAKE NEWS part of it and adds some more ham to the already ludricous situation. That she is front runner to keep the seat warm for another 2y was a given once she started trailing in her own race.

 

 

As for AZ's senate seat, I did enjoy the RNC being annoyed when (ignoring her trumpismy post-primary) McSally didn't go full ham into the "election fraud/steal" screams some other Reps are doing in various other still contested races. Even funnier when AGAIN your president goes into the whole FAKE NEWS part of it and adds some more ham to the already ludricous situation. That she is front runner to keep the seat warm for another 2y was a given once she started trailing in her own race.

Arizona let everyone know that all the votes had not been counted. They let every know how many votes were cast, and how many remained to be counted. There was no mystery ballots found. There were no invalid ballots thrown back into valid ballots. Arizona did everything right, and Kyrsten Sinema won the seat fair and square. Not so in Broward Florida.

 

I think Martha McSally was always guaranteed a seat in the Senate. They didn't see any harm in trying to keep both seats by winning one, and appointing the other, and neither did I. It was the smart play for Republicans.

 

 

Why don't America shift to a multi party system?

That would solve all this

 

In before Betsy. 

 

 

Why me?

 

Aside from RH's commentary, a direct cause if a FPTP election, "winner takes all" is an idiotic thing in a democracy, compounded with that in the US most (not all) wins can be done by plurality so offcourse they (the parties) band together into a 50%+1 so they can be "sure" of winning. Meanwhile the fringe parties (green, libertarians, ...) are seen as more as a lifestyle choice. Only plus side you guys have is the lack of "protest votes", or atleast not as frequent as happening here.

 

As for AZ's senate seat, I did enjoy the RNC being annoyed when (ignoring her trumpismy post-primary) McSally didn't go full ham into the "election fraud/steal" screams some other Reps are doing in various other still contested races. Even funnier when AGAIN your president goes into the whole FAKE NEWS part of it and adds some more ham to the already ludricous situation. That she is front runner to keep the seat warm for another 2y was a given once she started trailing in her own race.

 

 

Because while America's two party system is a bit broken, lots of americans think that this means having more political parties represented always means better and more effective government (ie, more parties would "solve all of this" as MK put it). 

 

And uh. Belgium. 

 

As for AZ's senate seat, I did enjoy the RNC being annoyed when (ignoring her trumpismy post-primary) McSally didn't go full ham into the "election fraud/steal" screams some other Reps are doing in various other still contested races. Even funnier when AGAIN your president goes into the whole FAKE NEWS part of it and adds some more ham to the already ludricous situation. That she is front runner to keep the seat warm for another 2y was a given once she started trailing in her own race.

Arizona let everyone know that all the votes had not been counted. They let every know how many votes were cast, and how many remained to be counted. There was no mystery ballots found. There were no invalid ballots thrown back into valid ballots. Arizona did everything right, and Kyrsten Sinema won the seat fair and square. Not so in Broward Florida.

 

I think Martha McSally was always guaranteed a seat in the Senate. They didn't see any harm in trying to keep both seats by winning one, and appointing the other, and neither did I. It was the smart play for Republicans.

 

 

So do the other places, doesn't stop people who should know to whine about it. (the uninitiated have a different problem >_>)

 

I was even congratulating her on her demeanor during this, which is sad that you would need to congratulate someone over something this basic.

 

And yes, smart plan by the R's, thou I doubt people didn't see that one coming

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't America shift to a multi party system?

That would solve all this

 

In before Betsy. 

 

 

Why me?

 

Aside from RH's commentary, a direct cause if a FPTP election, "winner takes all" is an idiotic thing in a democracy, compounded with that in the US most (not all) wins can be done by plurality so offcourse they (the parties) band together into a 50%+1 so they can be "sure" of winning. Meanwhile the fringe parties (green, libertarians, ...) are seen as more as a lifestyle choice. Only plus side you guys have is the lack of "protest votes", or atleast not as frequent as happening here.

 

As for AZ's senate seat, I did enjoy the RNC being annoyed when (ignoring her trumpismy post-primary) McSally didn't go full ham into the "election fraud/steal" screams some other Reps are doing in various other still contested races. Even funnier when AGAIN your president goes into the whole FAKE NEWS part of it and adds some more ham to the already ludricous situation. That she is front runner to keep the seat warm for another 2y was a given once she started trailing in her own race.

 

 

Because while America's two party system is a bit broken, lots of americans think that this means having more political parties represented always means better and more effective government (ie, more parties would "solve all of this" as MK put it). 

 

And uh. Belgium. 

 

 More parties doesn't solve people not cooperating or understandingthe concept of consensus thruw compromise

 

Belgium o/

This is an example of Maine Democrats taking the multi-party system, and morphing it into the two party system, so they can win elections. They eliminate (disenfranchise) voter selection, and turn it into a "second choice" until one candidate reaches the 50% plus threshold. So it's not the one that gets the most votes wins... it's eliminate those votes that didn't make a difference until your candidate wins.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maine-congressman-loses-seat-in-controversial-ranked-choice-voting-race

Ranked voting is a method to "warp" a (style of) compromise into a FPTP voting system. You basicaly ask people to rank their choisen victors/champions. Nobody wins by plurality in this. It very much does NOT make this a two-party system, it actually actively allows multiple parties to excist and thrive BUT makes them chose a consensus figure to lead them (governor, senator, house rep, ...). It also has the "bonus" of overshouting the candidate the majority don't want while they themself still have the oppertunity to show their support for their prefered 1st candidate.

 

Because this is relatively new in the USA (or rather just Maine) it indeed meant that the 2 "major parties" came close to 50% (46,4% R, 45,5% D) and you are here being annoyed about it. Do know that this style of voting usually gets done with more and bigger parties being present, see Australia for example.

 

You can complain about it to these voters. It didn't just get changed out of thin air and it seems it was adopted on the premise that hardly anyone gets a 50%+1 election in Maine and as such they decided to "warp" their election into becoming just that. A concensus figure gets elected that is more likely to be "approved" off by the majority of the voting population. I do think the vote itself should have been a 2/3rd majority to change something this vital (aka constitutional in Maine).

 

That said, electoral voting is also a warp of the FPTP style elections, as you warp the popular vote into something not just being run by select few states with high population or several population hotspots.

I'm not annoyed by it at all. It's Maine, and they can run their elections any way their residents want them to be run. I was posting this to show that we do have a multi-party system, and Maine has taken steps, for example, to change the Green Party voters into Democrat votes, because those Green Party voters would prefer a Democrat over a Republican. It's designed for Maine voters to be able to vote their principles, but still be able to avoid a Republican winning their seat. Having your cake, and eating it too.

 

I only want the rules to be set before elections, and however the chips may fall, that's who has won. I personally didn't like it when Bill Clinton became President in '92 when he only could cobble together 43% of the vote... but he won the Electoral College, and therefore, he was duly elected by the people. There are too many here that want to change the rules after they lose.

I'm not annoyed by it at all. It's Maine, and they can run their elections any way their residents want them to be run. I was posting this to show that we do have a multi-party system, and Maine has taken steps, for example, to change the Green Party voters into Democrat votes, because those Green Party voters would prefer a Democrat over a Republican. It's designed for Maine voters to be able to vote their principles, but still be able to avoid a Republican winning their seat. Having your cake, and eating it too.

 

 

I'm curious why on earth you see that as a negative.  

 

Do you like a voting system where you feel required to vote republican or not at all, regardless of the quality of the candidate or their policy? If you feel your local republicans are screwing up  (Massive corruption scandal maybe) , would you not prefer to vote for an independent or third party candidate? 

 

Hell let's take the primaries alone: A republican candidate will, not uncommonly win the primary with less than 30% of the vote. Infact if people refuse to concede, it can be worse than that. Would you prefer the Republican Party run a walking disaster of a candidate that you and 70% of all republicans in the state voted against?

Hell let's take the primaries alone: A republican candidate will, not uncommonly win the primary with less than 30% of the vote.

I hear you clearly. Trump by name recognition alone carried 30% of the Republican primary vote when the lion share of the vote was split between the rest of the herd. It was obvious that 10 others would have to drop out for anyone to beat him, but they wouldn't do it. Scott Walker tried to start the exodus, but they were too slow, and Trump just gained momentum until it was too late for him to be stopped.

 

I really didn't know what to expect. I was happy to not have Clinton, but Trump has done better than anyone expected. We'll have to see what happens, but I think he has surprised a lot of people that didn't think he would live up to his bluster. He will be harder to beat this time around.

I'm not annoyed by it at all. It's Maine, and they can run their elections any way their residents want them to be run. I was posting this to show that we do have a multi-party system, and Maine has taken steps, for example, to change the Green Party voters into Democrat votes, because those Green Party voters would prefer a Democrat over a Republican. It's designed for Maine voters to be able to vote their principles, but still be able to avoid a Republican winning their seat. Having your cake, and eating it too.

 

I only want the rules to be set before elections, and however the chips may fall, that's who has won. I personally didn't like it when Bill Clinton became President in '92 when he only could cobble together 43% of the vote... but he won the Electoral College, and therefore, he was duly elected by the people. There are too many here that want to change the rules after they lose.

 

That in part shows why a 3rd (or more) party is difficult in the USA, as your election splits the Legislative and Executive powers (while pooling the executive into 1 party) makes it virtual impossible to go with a multi-party coalition, you'd need a "willing" president to hand out executive spots to the coalition party('s) for it to work, kinda like this but the for really "high profile" jobs. This also gives rise to split governments (state and lower), an executive that is another party as the legislative tends to lead to deadlocks instead of the "check and balances" philosophy.

 

 

 

As for Trump doing better then expected, not all that hard when they weren't many expectations to begin with, just doom-scenario's. Likewise wit a Clinton presidency there were more doom-scenario's then actual policy (or rather, the doom scenario's were more visible brought up then her policies) and as long as neither goes to war it basically is already a "WIN" situation

 

 

you'd need a "willing" president to hand out executive spots to the coalition party('s) for it to work, kinda like this but the for really "high profile" jobs.

This might be a little hard to wrap your head around, but there is this problem with rhetoric that drives politics in the USA. Republicans, for the most part, want the government to function as written in the Constitution. How this became an extreme position is a mystery to me. Democrats, for the most part, want to fundamentally change how the government functions, and ignore the Constitution when it gets in their way. This is an enormously extreme position. This is why we have so little cooperation these days.

 

Hell let's take the primaries alone: A republican candidate will, not uncommonly win the primary with less than 30% of the vote.

I hear you clearly. Trump by name recognition alone carried 30% of the Republican primary vote when the lion share of the vote was split between the rest of the herd. It was obvious that 10 others would have to drop out for anyone to beat him, but they wouldn't do it. Scott Walker tried to start the exodus, but they were too slow, and Trump just gained momentum until it was too late for him to be stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

Sure but how would you feel if say Captain Corruption Chris Christie had managed to squeak through instead. 

 

Or if you take an edge case: Your local primaries for things like the house are shit.Turnout for that stuff is pathetic. And with the republican parties appeal to the right, every so often some uber fundamentalist evangelical gets a decent chunk of the vote. Because hey you only need a few thousand people to vote for you in the primary due to that bad turn out, and the fundamentalist wing nuts will come out for the fundamentalist wing nut candidate. So now  you've got some whack job getting 15%-20% of the vote on a platform of instituting religious tests for school attendance or whatever bullshit. If you lived in Washington state, would you be all that happy Matt "Wants to institute a theocracy, and published a manual for terrorist holy war" Shea managed to get through the primary into the state legislature. Regardless of our differences, i don't think either of us would trust a guy who writes this shit to bother with the constitution, or rule of law, or "Not advocating for war crimes".  

 

Or in illinois, the republican party is so messed up that Arthur Jone ended up running unopposed. The dude is so vile that Bruce Rauner (as in the Republican governor) took a bit of time out of running his own campaign for reelection to stump for Arthur Jone's Democrat opponent. Given that third party candidates have zero chance, right now you'd be forced to just accept the primary and vote for a member of the American Nazi Party, stay home, or vote Democrat. Would you not prefer a system where you could at least take a look at the independent or third party candidates and while any of them might only get 3% or 4% of the vote, a larger percentage of the voters (say 10%  to 20% again) would collectively support at least one of them over either main party. 

 

Personally I also like the argument that ranked voting keeps parties honest. Your local republican has little interest in representing your views. Hopefully they do that for you, but realistically right now their campaign pitch could consist of walking up to you and pissing in your face and your choice would be to  vote blue, not vote, or say "yes sir can I have some more" and vote for them anyways. If there's a third party or independent candidate you like more, but you could still tolerate whoever is on the republican ticket, some form of ranked voting lets you vote for them without screwing yourself over with the spoiler effect. And if a third party candidate gets a large percentage of them popular vote, that'll sure as hell make the republican party sit up and take notice. Like if the vote goes 40/30/20 D/R/L  that'd be a big wake up call that the republcains better get their shite together or next time it might be the same split but D/L/R. 

typical Democratic tactics...

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/broward-misses-machine-recount-deadline-by-2-minutes

 

and they are they party who claims that the GOP wants to disenfranchise people... what a joke

 

 

Personally I also like the argument that ranked voting keeps parties honest. Your local republican has little interest in representing your views. Hopefully they do that for you, but realistically right now their campaign pitch could consist of walking up to you and pissing in your face and your choice would be to vote blue, not vote, or say "yes sir can I have some more" and vote for them anyways.

It sounds like you're describing the Republican relationship with John McCain. Fortunately, because of mortality, we don't have that problem any longer. Jeff Flake on the other hand, is still doing it. Even when he knew for a fact that he would never be reelected, he still is pissing in our face, and has now surrendered his seat to an actual Democrat. Now at least Arizona will experience having a real Democrat represent them. Time will tell how they handle the future.

 

Your 40/30/20 example is pretty damn close to the actual Presidential election of '92, that blessed us with the Clintons. Ross Perot took 20% of the Republican vote to a third party candidate. It denied George H.W. Bush a second term, and graced us with a pair of Captain Corruptions that we still have to deal with to this very day. Ralph Nader without a doubt prevented Al Gore from being President, and I believe a strong case can be made that third party candidates prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming President.

 

We live in a Republic, and each state can make their own rules on elections. From our conversation here, you make a strong case that we should eliminate the multi-party system. The nation as a whole, will never incorporate this lame "Second Choice" model. Either way, you must take it from beyond the enormous power of the IRON forum, and into the weak realm of Constitutional Amendments. I vote to keep our Republic, and our Electoral College.

 

Personally I also like the argument that ranked voting keeps parties honest. Your local republican has little interest in representing your views. Hopefully they do that for you, but realistically right now their campaign pitch could consist of walking up to you and pissing in your face and your choice would be to vote blue, not vote, or say "yes sir can I have some more" and vote for them anyways.

It sounds like you're describing the Republican relationship with John McCain. Fortunately, because of mortality, we don't have that problem any longer. Jeff Flake on the other hand, is still doing it. Even when he knew for a fact that he would never be reelected, he still is pissing in our face, and has now surrendered his seat to an actual Democrat. Now at least Arizona will experience having a real Democrat represent them. Time will tell how they handle the future.

 

Your 40/30/20 example is pretty damn close to the actual Presidential election of '92, that blessed us with the Clintons. Ross Perot took 20% of the Republican vote to a third party candidate. It denied George H.W. Bush a second term, and graced us with a pair of Captain Corruptions that we still have to deal with to this very day. Ralph Nader without a doubt prevented Al Gore from being President, and I believe a strong case can be made that third party candidates prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming President.

 

We live in a Republic, and each state can make their own rules on elections. From our conversation here, you make a strong case that we should eliminate the multi-party system. The nation as a whole, will never incorporate this lame "Second Choice" model. Either way, you must take it from beyond the enormous power of the IRON forum, and into the weak realm of Constitutional Amendments. I vote to keep our Republic, and our Electoral College.

 

 

That's the thing though, you don't even need to touch the electoral college. 

 

Almost none of the current american voting system has anything to do with the constitution. Basically everything that currently exists boils down to "the state legislature passed a law saying this happens"

 

Tomorrow, your state could decide that you don't get to vote for president anymore. Your states contribution to the electoral college could be appointed by the legislature.Primaries are a thing because everyone decided they should be, not because they're some intrinsic process enshrined in the constitution. How the US conducts voting today is barely older than you are. A hair over 100 years ago, you probably couldn't vote for your senator. Primaries didn't exist. Most of the rules for getting on the ballot are no older than the 40s.

 

The parties can conduct their primaries however they please. They could dispose of them tomorrow. The GOP could decide that next election, their candidate for president will be decided by a farting contest. There's zero reason either party couldn't do so. 

 

All the 17th amendment requires is that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof". The system for electing them doesn't matter.

 

For the electoral college it's even less restrictive. They could make the presidential election entirely proportional. Texas has...32 electoral college votes? So the state legislature can go, 52/43/3? Ok we'll appoint 17 pledged to trump, 14 for clinton and 1 for gary johnson. Or california would have appointed 34/18/2/1 Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein. 

 

The push back against this happening has nothing to do with some supposed sacred process (that's barely old enough to retire), but the fact that neither party wants to risk their precious gerrymandered districts. 

 

 

as far as ranked ballots go...many states in the USA already have pretty much this system in various places. It's just a vastly more expensive  and unwieldy version. If you live in Georgia or Louisiana and no one receives a majority, that triggers an entire second election between the top vote getters. Maine outright uses IRV, North Carolina uses it for judicial elections  Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have all used it in the past, 10 states currently use some form of run off election in the primaries, including Texas. Not to mention that quite a few large cities use it as well.  It's not like this is some new an untested idea in america. claiming that "The nation as a whole, will never incorporate this lame "Second Choice"  " is nonsense. A sizeable chunk of the nation already uses something similar at some point in the process. 

 

A ranked ballot simply results in an instant run off without all the expense and clusterfuck and other nonsense with current systems. 

 

And I mean if you want to be a constitutional originalist...feel free to go tell your wife she shouldn't be allowed to vote? And stop voting for the president. Or your senator. 

And I mean if you want to be a constitutional originalist...feel free to go tell your wife she shouldn't be allowed to vote? 

Yes, Senators used to be appointed and women did not have the vote... Amendments changed that. I have no problem whatsoever with amending the Constitution. I have a major problem with the Constitution being amended by 9 appointed lawyers in black robes, so I will be supporting the party that fights strongly against it.

 

 

The push back against this happening has nothing to do with some supposed sacred process (that's barely old enough to retire), but the fact that neither party wants to risk their precious gerrymandered districts.

You are so correct here. I think everyone would really prefer that electoral votes be earned and proportioned out to the candidates, it's really the only fair way to do it, but there is nothing to make the states do it, and they will all just say "Okay, we'll do it... you first!" It would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Anything short of that would fail.

 

My wife is more Republican than I am. Election Day is treated like a holiday around here. I would never try to tell her she can't vote.

Not really. All it would really require is an interstate compact. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but there are workable frameworks. For example there's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. While it's not proportional assignment, if it comes into force, their states legislatures would appoint electors instep with the national popular vote. Assuming current legislation passes, it would be up to 45% of the 63% of the electoral college votes needed for it to come into effect. it'll need a few red states to get on board  (well assuming the swing states don't sign on, but like hell ohio or florida are giving up their hilarious outsized influence), but at that point the supermajority of the electoral college votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote. Which at least solves that particular  issue. 

 

If there was an amendment at all, throwing out the electoral college in its current form would be better. We no longer live in a world where the fastest way to get news is a guy on a horse, and the current system breaks down for larger populations. While there is something to be said for biasing to geographic regions, a vote in alaska is worth 3.3 times as much as in texas and 4 times as much as in california, which is just broken. No longer tying it to integer number of senators and using a population weighted average that then gets split proportionally would be vastly preferable.

 

Unfortunately no such amendment is probable in the vaguely near future so interstate compacts are the likely way to go. 

 

you'd need a "willing" president to hand out executive spots to the coalition party('s) for it to work, kinda like this but the for really "high profile" jobs.

This might be a little hard to wrap your head around, but there is this problem with rhetoric that drives politics in the USA. Republicans, for the most part, want the government to function as written in the Constitution. How this became an extreme position is a mystery to me. Democrats, for the most part, want to fundamentally change how the government functions, and ignore the Constitution when it gets in their way. This is an enormously extreme position. This is why we have so little cooperation these days.

 

 

The Republican party is "originalist" those times when it sees fit to make their point, just as the Democratic party is "progressive" when they deem it fit to be that. And I doubt you even know what "fundamentally changes" the Dems actually want but instead you hear "what they will take away X" screams.

 

No actual amendment fit the name will pass in this current USA, due indeed to rhetoric from either side. Most recent amendments where either progressive in nature (no poll tax, +18y voting, ...) or direct changes to how your legislative/executive branch is run (term limit to POTUS, date of sitting elected persons, ...). All denoting an "evolution" of your Constitution in time, from this stemming the very basic tennant of the term "conservative" in being against change.

 

And you DO deviate from "written as in ..." format on many accounts, laws in most part are written down ambiguous so that case-to-case decisions can be applied when applicable. Examples plenty, but the most glaring one is probably the 9th amendment, which in its original form basically states that more rights excist beyond the scope of those stated in your Constitution. => gov can do whatever they want inside current law unless stated otherwise (and no using feelings!)

 

 

And you DO deviate from "written as in ..." format on many accounts, laws in most part are written down ambiguous so that case-to-case decisions can be applied when applicable. Examples plenty, but the most glaring one is probably the 9th amendment, which in its original form basically states that more rights excist beyond the scope of those stated in your Constitution. => gov can do whatever they want inside current law unless stated otherwise (and no using feelings!)

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. The Constitution is all about government limits. It's a contract between the states and the Federal Government which outlines the limit of Federal law. It's a set of specific orders that deny Congress power. It's not about what the Federal Government can do... it's about what they cannot do.

 

Progressives want the Federal Government to control wealth, health, environment, energy, education, poverty, society and on and on and on... all the things that are not the business of the Federal Government. Over a hundred years of Progressive unconstitutional behavior by Congress and the Supreme Court, little by little, has led us to the brink of ruin. We have 50 states with very strong state governments for the purpose of governing. It's time they stop abdicating their purpose, and their responsibility.

What "control"? Every party have some fetishes they want to control, that isn't new.

 

Wealth? okay, no more taxes, enjoy paying for your military.

Health? okay, no more health inspectors, enjoy your food poisoning.

Energy? okay, no more electricity for you, enjoy your generators and rampant fuel costs.

Eduction? okay, no more teachers for you, enjoy your primary/secondary sector economy.

Poverty? okay, no more food stamps, enjoy your veterans starving.

Society? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, says the party from which such enlightend people came that RH quoted but you glossed over.

 

Is this "run gov like business" seeping thruw? Cause that sure wasn't the idea of your Founding Fathers, one of the reasons they wanted independence even!

 

The governments business is what the people electing them decide they desire, the people for instance decided lots of things, all in some point viewed as "progressive" and "overreach" at their time, all currently engrained into your very fabric that you are willing to die for it. If you so want, I got a settlers house to sell you.

 

 

All that drivel...

Buddy, you clearly do not know anything about how a Constitutional Republic works.