Well, I agree that we do have the pendulum swing, but I fear that the two sets of beliefs that it swings back and forth between don't necessarily reflect a shift in the ideas of the voters, because some voters have to lump in things that they don't believe in in order to vote for things that they do.
I agree with that sentiment entirely. It's a third dimension to the two party system that a lot of people don't seem to consider.
If I were going to try to improve it, I would say this:
(1) Get rid of political parties. I would just be Cyril, not Cyril (D) or Cyril (R) or Cyril (I). This would also get rid of primaries.
(2) Have people vote not just for who they think would be best, but also second- and third-best. Then make each of the "first-best" votes be worth 3 points, "second-best" votes give the candidate 2 points, and so on. Then the person with the most points wins.
This would have a couple of advantages:
It would lessen the risk of having different candidates "steal voters" from each other to the extent that both would lose, even though they're closer to what the voters want than the person who wins.
For example, suppose there's a moderately-conservative candidate with 30% support and a far-right conservative candidate with 30% support and a far-left liberal candidate with 40% support. Under the current system, the liberal candidate would win, even though the majority of people support a conservative candidate. If you went with my system, then one of the conservative candidates might have won. It's kind of hard to explain in just text, but whatever.
Also, a lack of political primaries would keep more politicans in the race, giving the voters greater choice over who I can elect.
That is a good system, and if nothing else it deserves a shot. There is a major disadvantage to it, though, and that isn't in it's structure, but in the majority of voters.
Since everyone (to a certain extent) has the right to vote, they also have the responsibility to educate themselves on all matters, for and against everything that takes issue in politics. This is an ordeal in and of itself--political majors and politicians themselves have only a finite grasp of these concepts.
People must then take a moral stance on every issue, even minor ones, and compare them with a list of candidates. Even if there could be only one candidate for every unique bundle of issues, there are so many issues that there would be from hundreds to thousands of legitimate candidates each election. Let's say that you, Cyril, are running, and I agree with everything you offer except the denomination of your religion. Well, I have credentials; maybe I should run. Or maybe there is another person like you with different religious views. All I have to do is spend the next month sifting through candidates to find him.
It's a great system, but people vote the same way that they choose favorite football teams. People from Chicago love the Bears. People from the west coast love west coast teams. It doesn't matter that every single person can be traded or replaced; that
uniform and that
name is what they like because keeping track of every nuance of the sport would become a part-time job. Most people only like football during the Superbowl. Likewise, most people only pay attention to politics during the election. You might still get voted into third place by me--but all of the research I would need to do!
Your proposition would be wonderful if there were, let's say, some larger form of registering voters. Much like a Driver's license. If only people who studied or somehow proved their competency and involvement in the politics of the country could gain voting power, then "teams" wouldn't be necessary. Personally, I would approve of a system like that--of requiring effort to obtain a voter's license. But it would restrict voters and probably be unappealing to the populous.
What are your feelings about the Electoral College? And would an "indirect election" like that fit in a Utopian political system?
