The political equilibrium keeps things as they are. Those in power can't do what needs doing because they'll get thrown out for it (ex.: total spending must be cut in half, but nobody is going to make such draconian across-the-board cuts and survive). Something has to break to disrupt that equilibrium, something like defaulting on debt maintenance or onset of hyperinflation.
Yes, we're stuck in a rut. There comes a point where you have to get out of the car and start walking, leaving the driving paradigm behind.
I bet most of them are people who don't care about politics. Good luck trying to engage them, people have been trying to do so for decades and have failed. The simple reality is that life is comfortable enough for most. Few are starving, few are persecuted- if you're earning enough to live a relatively comfortable life, why bother voting?
OK, just to cite one example: The population of North Carolina as of 2012 was 9,752,073. 23.7% are under 18 and therefore ineligible to vote. That leaves approximately 7,440,831 eligible voters[1] (I'm ignoring convicted felons and other edge cases for now).
According to the State Board of Elections, there are currently 6,438,531 registered voters. 2,764,322 Democrats, 1,984,251 Republicans, 20,901 Libertarians and 1,669,057 unaffiliated.[2] So that gives us around 1,002,300 potential voters who aren't even registered. So around 13% of the eligible voters aren't even registered and obviously don't vote.
Now that's just one state, and that doesn't even attempt to account for people who are registered, but don't bother to vote, or vote infrequently. But it does suggest that there's a not-insignificant number of people who are sitting on the sidelines during elections.
Edit: Also, as one might expect, there's a Wikipedia page on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Your North Carolina example still stands, as only (only being relative here) ~80,000 people are disenfranchised due to felony status. But, in states like Florida, Mississippi and Kentucky, it can be as high as 10% of the voting age population.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/0...
(Local discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 )
Lawrence Lessig for President?
So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.
My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage.
Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.
This is vague enough as to be meaningless. In what precise ways is using range voting (and otherwise leaving things the same) worse than our current system?
"My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage."
Sure, of course; Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect". Therefore, calling a system "broken" can't mean simply "not perfect" or it's meaningless. However, I think it's fair to call a voting system "broken" when there is an alternative that's better along some axes while worse along none.
No it doesn't, its says that there is no system limited to rank-order inputs and outputs that meets certain criteria.
There are plenty of actual and potential voting systems that aren't within its scope, and it is also debatable whether the criteria it applies are the correct ones for a "perfect" voting system.
Your comment would benefit from elaboration. Are there any of the criteria you think are strong candidates for dismissal as elements of a hypothetical "perfect voting system"?
I don't think I'm currently grokking universality with the depth I need to assess it. I remember it seeming reasonable when I did dig deep in all this, ages back.
But Australia tempers this with preferential voting in the house which is simply better than the US electoral system (because small parties can still sway the outcome without actually getting members into parliament -- e.g. the greens can say they prefer X over Y and then direct their votes to X or Y, but if they actually get a big vote they can still win).
New Zealand has a really nice system which is a little proportional but not too proportional and wastes very few votes without turning some tiny nutcase party into the tie breaker.
The fix is instant run-off voting, like Australia has.
That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
A party has to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes.
It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.
"It's like libertarianism meets communism but with promiscuous transparency and cryptography instead of classlessness.
Get ready people, Libercommusharepunkism is about to disrupt!"