WI: Progressive Reform Includes Multiparty System?

Zioneer

Banned
As the title says, what if the original progressive movement saw some of the flaws in a two-party system, and revamped electoral politics to have, if not parliamentary, at least a multiparty system? How would this come about? Who would be the initial beneficiaries of this change?
 
How is this done? This is a principle, like 'improve democratic accountability of legislators,' and not a concrete action, like 'institute recall elections and direct election of senators.'
 

Zioneer

Banned
In the United States?

Yeah, in the United States. Preferably in the early 1900s or late 1800s, which is why I put it here.

How is this done? This is a principle, like 'improve democratic accountability of legislators,' and not a concrete action, like 'institute recall elections and direct election of senators.'

I was thinking a reform of the Electoral College, if at all possible. Perhaps a removal of "first-past-the-post", and legislation put into place to allow even small parties to compete nationally (as in, they don't need to get 10% of a state's gubernatorial votes to show up on a ticket or whatever)?
 

mowque

Banned
I was thinking a reform of the Electoral College, if at all possible. Perhaps a removal of "first-past-the-post", and legislation put into place to allow even small parties to compete nationally (as in, they don't need to get 10% of a state's gubernatorial votes to show up on a ticket or whatever)?

How do they go about getting it? In my TL, I played with a few ideas.

One of them was since having WJ Bryan win the Prez. gave me the vehicle for a populist, progressive movement. I had a plethora of voting systems tried on on the local level and then work up the state. I never touched Congress or the White House but some states (look into it, some used all sorts of systems) used weighted voting, run off, transferable.
 
I was thinking a reform of the Electoral College, if at all possible. Perhaps a removal of "first-past-the-post", and legislation put into place to allow even small parties to compete nationally (as in, they don't need to get 10% of a state's gubernatorial votes to show up on a ticket or whatever)?

Things like the 17th Amendment were passed due to state pressure and a fear of what might be proposed at a convention. You would probably need something many states adopting resolutions in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, or some early version of the NPVIC, and lots of states calling for a convention to pass such a thing.

But this is something a bit more fundamental than directly electing Senators. Representation remained the same, and only the process of selection changed hands. A proposal to abolish the Senate would have faced much greater opposition from smaller states, just as an anti-EC proposal would.

A really nasty and corrupt election would probably help, at some point, and I'm not talking things like 1876. I mean something like "Rockefeller buys himself 200 electors in defiance of popular vote."
 
Last edited:
Top