The Voting System That Gives You Two Votes

Germany uses mixed-member proportional representation. You cast two votes in each Federal election: one vote for a registered political party at the federal level and one vote for among a list of local candidates from those parties. The ballots famously have the phrase "You have 2 voices/votes" ("Sie haben 2 Stimmen") on the top [1]. The seats in the Bundestag are parceled out in proportion to shares of the national vote among federally recognized parties, and each party has a list of candidates who may or may not get a seat from that party's resulting allotment, based in part on the popularity of those candidates in their local list elections. The math of it is a bit more complicated than that, but it works quite well to completely sidestep the gerrymandering problem. The flipside is that parties must be registered federally to participate, and this gives the government a great deal of implicit power to exclude parties it doesn't like. CGP Grey has a good YouTube video explaining it, probably better than I have here [2]. [1]: [link] [2]: [this video]

I think we could come together with both Ideas and make a system that works. I like some aspects of your plan , but I would want to see a few modifications. Your extending into voting systems as well and I don't necessarily think your doing it the best way , but i _love_ the idea your putting forth. Edit: So i realise why I like aspects of your proposal. Because it has a few of the principles of the Mixed-Member proportional [0] System mixed into it. I like MMP I really like it. I think that combined with a radical expansion of the number of representatives ( I think we should be closer to 100k then 500k, maybe as low as 50k ) would allow us to do many amazing things as a country. Also I would toss this wrinkle in. MMP is done at a state level and only state level political parties are recognized, and they are now official. They must follow rules to elect their leadership. 0. [this video]

How important is this privilege if I can maliciously control how you vote? Now imagine the good we can do with real electoral reform (Democrats idea of repealing citizens United is a meager start, but weak lip service to real reform) What we have now - First Past The Post Voting - [link] Range Voting - [link] Single Transferable Vote - [link] Alternative Vote - [link] Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - [this video] Electoral reform is just step 1, something we can all come together for. Something no one could possibly be against. How about if I control who can be voted for? Of course it matters - [link] bonus video: This video will make you angry - [link]

> the EU is not democratic in the first place EU Election system is _literally_ one of the fairest systems in existence[0] ensuring that every party get some measure of proportional representation. Compared to English First Past the Post (minority rule, and 2 party systems) or Scotlands Single-transferrable vote (which is still winner take all); but D'Hondts method means that people can be safe in the knowledge they'll be represented and it's proportional to the input. It's not "perfect" but it's _literally_ the best humans have come up with. [0]: [link] [0.1]: [link] CGP Grey did some videos on these: FPTP (England): [link] STV (Scotland): [link] D'Hondt-esque (EU): [this video]

(Note: I'm not an american) > Whether it’s Biden’s fault or not is irrelevant > again, whether that was Trump’s doing or not is irrelevant For democracy to work, you need voters with a good enough civics education to understand how the different parts of government interact, and a trustworthy media providing factual news so voters can understand the dilemmas their politicians are facing. If what you're saying is right, and American voters are unable or unwilling to understand how their vote and current events combine to cause certain outcomes, doesn't that mean democracy in the US cannot possibly work? What you're describing sounds closer to a popularity contest or a sports competition than politics. ________________________ Personally, I believe a major part of this issue is caused by the political system and media landscape of the US. In a two-party system as in the US, the legislative only represents half the population (as bipartisan efforts are rare), leading to resentment among the other half. In a mixed-member proportional system[1], as in Germany, New Zealand and many Scandinavian countries, you end up with many more different parties in parliament (Germany currently has 8 [2]). For any law to pass, you need multiple parties to work together, which allows more voters to be represented. Similarly, while in Germany newspapers and public broadcasters still provide high-quality news (less than 20% of the population distrust the public broadcasters and major newspapers as

Or you could switch to a different voting system which allows more than two parties, allowing people to make more nuanced choices? There are even voting systems which are perfectly representative (as a popular vote would be) and ensure all states get a voice (the goal of the electoral college). Say, a bicameral system. One chamber allocating each state a fixed number of voices, ensuring each state has a voice, and a second chamber with mixed-member-proportional voting ( [this video] ), which allows perfectly proportional majorities in this chamber while giving each district a representative (in the process also fixing gerrymandering). In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.