USA Alternative vote amendment

El Speculador

What would happen if, at some point in American history, there was a constitutional amendment which changed elections from the "first-past the post" voting system into one of alternative votes. You can just Google/Bing this if you want information about it, but what I want to know is whether there was a point in American history where it could have happened. Could it be part of the expansion of democracy in the progressive era, the tumultuous change of the 60's, or in the 21st century? Any points before 1900 are also ok, including the constitutional convention. If so for any of these, what is the likely result?
Note: "First past the post" means the one with the most votes wins, i.e., the standard system.
 

Ziemniak

Alternative Vote is usually pushed for when there are more than two strong parties. So your question basically boils down to "when in U.S. history could the two party system break so thoroughly that it is deemed unfixable by any non-radical means?" Personally, I think the best scenario would be a timeline with no southern strategy by the GOP where the South keeps voting for a right-wing pro-segregation party indefinitely. After 3-4 consecutive Presidential elections get thrown into the House, they turn to AV as a way of ensuring that the winner has more legitimacy. That seems like the best way to get AV by way of constitutional amendment.

But to be honest, I don't think a constitutional amendment is the best solution. Local governments have adopted AV in various places at various times in OTL. It might be easier to spread those movements rather than try to do it nationally all at once. It was most popular in the Progressive era. So maybe one state adopts it in the 1910s, then another and another, and in 20-30 years or so it becomes the norm.
 

Mikestone8

El Speculador said:
What would happen if, at some point in American history, there was a constitutional amendment which changed elections from the "first-past the post" voting system into one of alternative votes. You can just Google/Bing this if you want information about it, but what I want to know is whether there was a point in American history where it could have happened. Could it be part of the expansion of democracy in the progressive era, the tumultuous change of the 60's, or in the 21st century? Any points before 1900 are also ok, including the constitutional convention. If so for any of these, what is the likely result?
Note: "First past the post" means the one with the most votes wins, i.e., the standard system.
Click to expand...


You probably have to go back to the 1850s. If the South wakes up to the danger of a POTUS getting elected on Northern votes alone, they may try to "move the goal posts" to make this harder.

Trouble is, of course that the window of opportunity is narrow. By the time they realise their danger, the opposition may well be already strong enough to block such a move.

Still, perhaps if one of the various amendments proposed in the 1810s and 1820s succeeds, and Presidential Electors are chosen in single-member districts, then a generation later there might be a further amendment to adopt AV - but it's a long shot.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Ziemniak said:
Alternative Vote is usually pushed for when there are more than two strong parties.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it can also be used with a Louisiana-style jungle primary but avoiding a separate runoff. When AV (or IRV as it's also known) has been used in the US in OTL, it's typically in this way with more than one candidate from one party, e.g. San Francisco. I also note in the small print for that example that voters are only allowed to rank up to three choices rather than all of them, which is interesting.
 

El Speculador

Ziemniak said:
But to be honest, I don't think a constitutional amendment is the best solution. Local governments have adopted AV in various places at various times in OTL. It might be easier to spread those movements rather than try to do it nationally all at once. It was most popular in the Progressive era. So maybe one state adopts it in the 1910s, then another and another, and in 20-30 years or so it becomes the norm.
Click to expand...

Could you provide me with some examples? I was not aware if this. Also, wouldn't an amendment be needed for it to work that way on a federal level?
 

Mikestone8

El Speculador said:
Could you provide me with some examples? I was not aware if this. Also, wouldn't an amendment be needed for it to work that way on a federal level?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
Senators and Representatives are chosen in the first instance according to State law, though Congress has the power to overrule them.

Presidential Electors are chosen as the State Legislature shall by law provide, except that they must not deny or abridge the right to vote for them on grounds of race, colour or previous condition of servitude (15th Amd), sex (19th Amd), failure to pay a poll tax or other tax (24th Amd) or age if over 18 (26th Amd).

So it would appear that Congress has the power to mandate the Alternative Vote for either or both Houses, and individual States have the same power unless Congress forbids it by law. Congress can't mandate it for Presidential Electors, but individual States can adopt it if they choose, and Congress has no veto over their doing so.
 

El Speculador

Mikestone8 said:
Not necessarily.
Senators and Representatives are chosen in the first instance according to State law, though Congress has the power to overrule them.

Presidential Electors are chosen as the State Legislature shall by law provide, except that they must not deny or abridge the right to vote for them on grounds of race, colour or previous condition of servitude (15th Amd), sex (19th Amd), failure to pay a poll tax or other tax (24th Amd) or age if over 18 (26th Amd).

So it would appear that Congress has the power to mandate the Alternative Vote for either or both Houses, and individual States have the same power unless Congress forbids it by law. Congress can't mandate it for Presidential Electors, but individual States can adopt it if they choose, and Congress has no veto over their doing so.
Click to expand...

So the states could choose their electors and representatives with alternative vote, but none have yet?
 

ColeMercury

Instant-runoff voting in Australia was introduced in 1918 after a by-election in the seat of Swan was won by the Labor Party with just 34.4% of the vote, due to the conservative vote being split between the Country Party (31.4%) and Nationalist Party (29.6%). It was introduced by Prime Minister Billy Hughes – who was, by the way, a Nationalist.

So in order to introduce instant-runoff voting in America – or at least in a state of the USA – you need the rise of a third party that will consistently vote-split in the same way as the Country Party, and a legislature which will be as blatantly self-interested as Hughes was.
 

El Speculador

ColeMercury said:
Instant-runoff voting in Australia was introduced in 1918 after a by-election in the seat of Swan was won by the Labor Party with just 34.4% of the vote, due to the conservative vote being split between the Country Party (31.4%) and Nationalist Party (29.6%). It was introduced by Prime Minister Billy Hughes – who was, by the way, a Nationalist.

So in order to introduce instant-runoff voting in America – or at least in a state of the USA – you need the rise of a third party that will consistently vote-split in the same way as the Country Party, and a legislature which will be as blatantly self-interested as Hughes was.
Click to expand...

Whigs V.S. Republicans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top