it is also very old system, first models of democracy and USA havent really whats the word? renew it at all. Like we gained independence only in 1917 and established "newer version" of democracy. your version is hundreds of years old and maybe need renewing? thats just how i see it.
The reason it has lasted through our Civil War, Reconstruction, the Great Depression, the Cold War, etc., is because electing an individual to represent, and be accountable to, a district WORKS. Then the Supreme Court allowed billionaires to buy districts. THAT is what needs to be addressed.
Let me repeat - you don't lose that. You can vote in your own district in Ireland, place numbers 1 to 7 on 7 to 20 names (with images on the ballot) and the representation at the end is far better than anything you do as it represents broader range of people.
There's no limit to the number of preferences on a ballot paper in Ireland i.e. if there are 20 candidates you can express your preferences from 1 to 20.
Rank order voting in the US would be an improvement, yes. The principal problem is the corruption of the system by huge amounts of dark money (donations from anonymous billionaires). Until the real problem is addressed, the rest are akin to giving aspirin to a cancer patient.
True, but we are talking about a change in the system, we have limits and rules for donations too in most EU countries. I don't pretend this makes it bulletproof against oligarch money, far from that and my country is a proof about that.
The main problem in the US is the Supreme Court effectively gutted the limits and rules for donations.
Yes - to continue using Ireland as an example (not a political system without its challenges it's important to note), the legal max cap for anonymous donations is set at €100 and the annual max cap for all donors is €6,350 per party and €2,540 per parliamentary candidate.
Yes, the US is the only major democracy lacking in effective campaign finance regulation, and our politics suffers as a result.
Sorry if it sounded I implied otherwise, I didn't mean that.
yeah and same form is also in Uk and Australia and other british "colonies", so its not really america only that does this. But does it really happen like that? alot of reps just vote what party brings to the table and then go do damage control in districts. in theory works not in action
Currently, Representatives depend on their Party and its core donors for their re-election campaigns. Make all that money known to the public and that impulse will go away.
it sounds to me like a easy fix, but maybe it works who knows? Also politicians need a different mindset, that they perceive political work as serving the people, and not just say anything to get higher status. But maybe if they would be dependent on popular support they would act on it?
Which is another symptom of anonymous money flooding the system. People used to get rich AND THEN serve in Congress, before Citizens United.
I also thought that money isnt as important for winning elections anymore, when its so easy to advertise in social media. Which brings another problem :D Who owns the social media algorithm and should it be regulated for fair spread of ideas? Elon Musk have ALOT of influence on elections and it bad
The vast majority of your expressed concerns about the US election system correlate with the flood of dark money following the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision. Changing the rules of how seats are awarded will not matter much as long as billionaires are allowed to buy the system.