AHC: Make this the major American Political parties

That is obviously a factor too, but the fact remains that there have been plenty of third party candidates who have been on the ballot in all fifty (or almost all) who have struggled to get more than 1 or 2% on election day. If all minor parties got ballot access in all 50 states, then I can't see that changing majorly. If, on the other hand, voting operated on a more preferential basis, then people would not be afraid to put a Libertarian or a Green first in case the candidate they wanted the least won. Ballot access would likely only become an issue for the fifth, sixth, and seventh largest parties, and even then, the increased appetite for third party politics, along with the stronger position of third and fourth parties who are inclined to support reform ballot access, might boost their efforts to get it in many states they did not already.

The preferential system is also open to manipulation, we had Group Voting for the Senate and a dude known as 'The Preference Whisperer' organised to get all the micro parties (as opposed to minor parties like the Greens) to preference each other first. The result was that about 30 micro parties between them gathered up enough votes that when they were all heaped into a preference pile the Motoring Enthusiast Party got a Senator elected in Victoria on 0.51% of the primary vote. Would that be a result Americans would be happy with?

Preferential voting work better IMO when its used to generate a 50%+1 winner. The big parties must make deals and promises to minor parties to get their preference support which (in theory) the wants of the most voters get realised.

As for the US, I think the double whammy of the Electoral College majority in a state swinging the whole state makes it tough for 3rd parties in the US. Even if the Libertarians won an electoral college vote all the EC votes in that state would go to the Reps or Dems. That said a good showing from a 3rd party would put the frighteners on the 2 majors, but they're just as likely to make it tougher for the 3rd party as to make an effort to court these voters.
 
The preferential system is also open to manipulation, we had Group Voting for the Senate and a dude known as 'The Preference Whisperer' organised to get all the micro parties (as opposed to minor parties like the Greens) to preference each other first. The result was that about 30 micro parties between them gathered up enough votes that when they were all heaped into a preference pile the Motoring Enthusiast Party got a Senator elected in Victoria on 0.51% of the primary vote. Would that be a result Americans would be happy with?

Preferential voting work better IMO when its used to generate a 50%+1 winner. The big parties must make deals and promises to minor parties to get their preference support which (in theory) the wants of the most voters get realised.

As for the US, I think the double whammy of the Electoral College majority in a state swinging the whole state makes it tough for 3rd parties in the US. Even if the Libertarians won an electoral college vote all the EC votes in that state would go to the Reps or Dems. That said a good showing from a 3rd party would put the frighteners on the 2 majors, but they're just as likely to make it tougher for the 3rd party as to make an effort to court these voters.
Yeah, I have heard about the Motoring Enthusiast Party example, however, as I understand it, that took place in a senate election which needed to fill 12 seats, which is rather too many seats in one STV constituency, if you ask me. If STV in congress was to happen, it would need to be in far smaller than that.

But what I was suggesting is preference voting for the Presidency, which is one post, and therefore is far harder to manipulate. You could use AV, Supplementary Vote, or a Two Round system. You could get rid of the electoral college and do it on the popular vote, or its possible there could be some other way of allocating EVs on a preferential basis. Perhaps use something not unlike STV to allocate a state's EVs, whilst obviously still voting for one party ticket rather than the delegates themselves? There is probably a way to do it, though someone it would require someone who is more of an expert than me in the field of voting systems to devise it. But in any of those cases, I highly doubt the Motoring Enthusiast Party will come close to the Presidency ;)
 
Yeah, I have heard about the Motoring Enthusiast Party example, however, as I understand it, that took place in a senate election which needed to fill 12 seats, which is rather too many seats in one STV constituency, if you ask me. If STV in congress was to happen, it would need to be in far smaller than that.

But what I was suggesting is preference voting for the Presidency, which is one post, and therefore is far harder to manipulate. You could use AV, Supplementary Vote, or a Two Round system. You could get rid of the electoral college and do it on the popular vote, or its possible there could be some other way of allocating EVs on a preferential basis. Perhaps use something not unlike STV to allocate a state's EVs, whilst obviously still voting for one party ticket rather than the delegates themselves? There is probably a way to do it, though someone it would require someone who is more of an expert than me in the field of voting systems to devise it. But in any of those cases, I highly doubt the Motoring Enthusiast Party will come close to the Presidency ;)

It was a half Senate election, 3 Senators per state, in a proportional system where ~14% of the vote over the entire State wins a seat and 30 'above the line' micro parties managed to get that ~14% between them. Previously they bled these preferences to bigger parties, but Glen Drury organised to get one of these into power, which one however is a lottery. In the 50%+1 preferential system in local electorates these preference deals aren't effective, we only have 3 cross benchers in the Lower House.

It might be possible to work out the result of the 2012 election using STV, although we'd have to make an assumption that the minors preference each other first.
 
OK, so in the 2012 Presidential election other parties/candidates got 2,236,111 votes, almost 2%.

However to see if preferential voting would have any impact given current voting trends we'd need to find a couple of states that had a lot of candidates on the ballot bled a lot of votes to 3rd parties, then we could see if preferential voting would have won an EC or two. I have no idea where to find 1) which states had the most names on the ballot 2) how many votes each candidate got in these states.
 
It was a half Senate election, 3 Senators per state, in a proportional system where ~14% of the vote over the entire State wins a seat and 30 'above the line' micro parties managed to get that ~14% between them. Previously they bled these preferences to bigger parties, but Glen Drury organised to get one of these into power, which one however is a lottery. In the 50%+1 preferential system in local electorates these preference deals aren't effective, we only have 3 cross benchers in the Lower House.

It might be possible to work out the result of the 2012 election using STV, although we'd have to make an assumption that the minors preference each other first.
I am somewhat confused by how this whole thing worked in the first place. Surely the whole point of STV is that voters rank the parties/candidates decide is that second preferences are made by the voter, not the parties?
 
I am somewhat confused by how this whole thing worked in the first place. Surely the whole point of STV is that voters rank the parties/candidates decide is that second preferences are made by the voter, not the parties?

About 85-90% of people fill out their ballot in accordance with their preferred political party's 'how to vote' cards, ~10% number 1-5 top to bottom and the small remainder in accordance with their own decisions. So before the election the parties work out who the hate and who they like before the election; the Animal Rights party likes the Greens and the Labor party but hates the Shooters & Fishers and National/Liberal coalition. The Greens say they will support some law for animal rights so the ARP so the ARP hands out 'how to vote' cards out the front of the polling station listing ARP 1, Greens 2, Labor 3, N/L 4 and S&F 5, and the S&F do the same in reverse. You're a big animal rights guy, so you grab their how to vote card and fill it out how they say, knowing that while the ARP won't get elected neither will the S&F and the Greens influence on Labor will make it more likely your animal law will get up. This makes these preference deals important in terms of getting votes and therefore the supporters of these parties aren't wasting their vote as the majors will have to do things to win their support to win power.

The senate WAS different, you could number 1 of 34 (in Victoria, other states had different number) above the line or all ~100 below the line and as you can imagine few people are going to bother with that shit. You had to get X signatures, or X party members and pay X dollars (much more than the $2000 to get above the line) to get above the line, the major and minor parties do it no worries and have 5 or so candidates below the line as well to get the numbers. Prior to the election the parties/candidate formally filed how they wanted their preferences to go with the Electoral Commission, who organised this rather than the voters. Given the way voting went the Lid/Nat and Labor were virtually guaranteed of getting the top 2 people and Greens the top person on their ticket (named in order below the line) with the 6th Senate seat up for grabs. In 2013 the almost 30 micro parties submitted preferences to the AEC that put the majors and minors last, so that when the handful of Votes gained by the Sex party, Fast Train Party and all the others got gathered up the MEP got Ricky into the Senate. Another quirk was David Leyonjhelm of the Liberal Democratic Party was 1st above the line, people saw the word 'Liberal' first and read no further, just ticked his box thinking he was the Liberal Party.

senateballotpaper2.gif


The main lesson is that mastery of this shit is how elections are won and lost.
 
About 85-90% of people fill out their ballot in accordance with their preferred political party's 'how to vote' cards, ~10% number 1-5 top to bottom and the small remainder in accordance with their own decisions. So before the election the parties work out who the hate and who they like before the election; the Animal Rights party likes the Greens and the Labor party but hates the Shooters & Fishers and National/Liberal coalition. The Greens say they will support some law for animal rights so the ARP so the ARP hands out 'how to vote' cards out the front of the polling station listing ARP 1, Greens 2, Labor 3, N/L 4 and S&F 5, and the S&F do the same in reverse. You're a big animal rights guy, so you grab their how to vote card and fill it out how they say, knowing that while the ARP won't get elected neither will the S&F and the Greens influence on Labor will make it more likely your animal law will get up. This makes these preference deals important in terms of getting votes and therefore the supporters of these parties aren't wasting their vote as the majors will have to do things to win their support to win power.

The senate WAS different, you could number 1 of 34 (in Victoria, other states had different number) above the line or all ~100 below the line and as you can imagine few people are going to bother with that shit. You had to get X signatures, or X party members and pay X dollars (much more than the $2000 to get above the line) to get above the line, the major and minor parties do it no worries and have 5 or so candidates below the line as well to get the numbers. Prior to the election the parties/candidate formally filed how they wanted their preferences to go with the Electoral Commission, who organised this rather than the voters. Given the way voting went the Lid/Nat and Labor were virtually guaranteed of getting the top 2 people and Greens the top person on their ticket (named in order below the line) with the 6th Senate seat up for grabs. In 2013 the almost 30 micro parties submitted preferences to the AEC that put the majors and minors last, so that when the handful of Votes gained by the Sex party, Fast Train Party and all the others got gathered up the MEP got Ricky into the Senate. Another quirk was David Leyonjhelm of the Liberal Democratic Party was 1st above the line, people saw the word 'Liberal' first and read no further, just ticked his box thinking he was the Liberal Party.

senateballotpaper2.gif


The main lesson is that mastery of this shit is how elections are won and lost.
Interesting, though I must say I am rather surprised that so high a proportion of voters defer to their first choices wishes on how to distribute the rest of their preferences. I haven't heard of that taking place in the STV elections in Scotland, NI, and the Republic, though maybe I just haven't heard about it.
 
Socialist: US never enters WWI and the Socialists build on their electoral momentum, they slowly win more downballot states and start to run congressmen.
Progressive/Social Democrat: Have electoral reform beyond FPTP be one of the key tenants of progressive reform from the start, this allows TR to win more states even if he loses 1912. This might need a major constitutional amendment, and it would benefit all non-duopoly voices.
A pragmatic Liberal party: Democrats, if they try to move left to counterbalance the Socialists and Progressives due to the gains they would make here
Centrist party: I really don't know, maybe some Libertarian?
A Center-right party: The GOP dosen't go southern strategy, but conditions in the TL would make it impossible. That or a libertarian movement rises, maybe as a backlash to progressive era?
A Right-wing Party: Maybe a semi-nativist movement or a earlier moral majority because the conditions of the TL butterflies away the need for Southern strategy
Far Right: A isolationalist far-right movement springs up in the 1930s or even, since this is all supposed to be one timeline, maybe if there is earlier call for civil rights, they spring up led by the KKK to fight against civil rights
 
Last edited:
It was a half Senate election, 3 Senators per state, in a proportional system where ~14% of the vote over the entire State wins a seat and 30 'above the line' micro parties managed to get that ~14% between them.
As I understand this type of system, three members in a state, you go with the first three who achieve 25% + 1 vote, because three who receive 25% + 1 don't leave room for a fourth.

These some deal where you roll "surplus" votes off the top. Don't really understand that. Maybe all of the first person to reach threshold's votes are redistributed to the voter's second choice.

You also roll votes off the bottom to the voter's next choice as necessary for the next person to reach threshold.

=======

I think a handful of New England towns (Cambridge, Lowell, and Worcester, Mass.) used or still use a system like this, which I think has some advantages.

But I don't see how three senators from a state only need 14% ? ? ?
 
Last edited:
As I understand this type of system, three members in a state, you go with the first three who achieve 25% + 1 vote, because three who receive 25% + 1 don't leave room for a fourth.

These some deal where you roll "surplus" votes off the top. Don't really understand that. Maybe all of the first person to reach threshold's votes are redistributed to the voter's second choice.

You also roll votes off the bottom to the voter's next choice as necessary for the next person to reach threshold.

=======

I think a handful of New England towns (Cambridge, Lowell, and Worcester, Mass.) used or still use a system like this, which I think has some advantages.

But I don't see how three senators from a state only need 14% ? ? ?

We have 12 Senators per State, in 2013 was a half Senate election so ostensibly 12.5% will get you a seat but the actual number is 14.3%.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0809/09rp08
 
Centrist party: I really don't know, maybe some Libertarian?

I don't see the current form of libertarianism (as it developed since the early 1970s) as being centrist in any way. It always seems to me a very dogmatic, ideological movement, thus running counter to the American pragmatical tradition. Maybe a somewhat watered-down version of libertarianism could work as the middle ground here, but I'd say that the centrist party would rather feature OTL moderate Republicans and Democrats (like maybe Michael Bloomberg or Joe Lieberman).
 
I don't see the current form of libertarianism (as it developed since the early 1970s) as being centrist in any way. It always seems to me a very dogmatic, ideological movement, thus running counter to the American pragmatical tradition. Maybe a somewhat watered-down version of libertarianism could work as the middle ground here, but I'd say that the centrist party would rather feature OTL moderate Republicans and Democrats (like maybe Michael Bloomberg or Joe Lieberman).

Bloomberg would be the best for a centrist party. Lieberman is a neocon, in the original sense of the word, which doesn't quite fit the bill.
 
I don't see the current form of libertarianism (as it developed since the early 1970s) as being centrist in any way. It always seems to me a very dogmatic, ideological movement, thus running counter to the American pragmatical tradition. Maybe a somewhat watered-down version of libertarianism could work as the middle ground here, but I'd say that the centrist party would rather feature OTL moderate Republicans and Democrats (like maybe Michael Bloomberg or Joe Lieberman).
Classical Liberalism probably fits what your describing better than libertarianism. Generally in favour of encouraging enterprise to promote growth, but at the same time largely not opposed to state provision where it already exists. At the same time, they might be more liberal on social issues, and be positively disposed toward immigration, gay marriage, and gun control.

Alternatively, the centrist party could espouse ideas more in line with christian democracy, more interventionist when it comes to the economy in order to improve citizens wellbeing, but at the same time more socially conservative. There are many different ways to be centrist.
 
Top