Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Election Reform

Showing Original Post only (View all)

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 09:20 PM Mar 2016

Isn't the first step to election reform defining the purpose of elections? [View all]


Back in 1776 a document set forth a simple test of the moral legitimacy of government: that it based on the consent of the governed. If we subscribe to such a standard, then the purpose of elections is the yardstick to measure that consent.

But what of an electoral system that is incapable of accurately measuring that consent because doesn't offer all citizens choices to vote their conscience and get representation, doesn't encourage maximum turnout, weighs votes differently, or where up to half of the votes count for nothing? Can such a system ever produce morally legitimate government?
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's a reasonable question. Wilms Mar 2016 #1
Sure... eniwetok Mar 2016 #2
election 2000 eniwetok Mar 2016 #3
heres some questions to think about clarkkentvotes Sep 2016 #4
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»Isn't the first step to e...»Reply #0