|
What would be the logic on getting the loser to break the tie -- more gridlock?
Depends on where you stand -- I would not mind a very gradual change -- no crisis here.
I would rather go with a 4 party race like I said and let the Electoral College do its job as contemplated by the constitution. I think the intent was a more towards multi-party elections in the USA rather than a rubber stamp endorsement of the 2 party system.
Oh noes! The USA might have competition in politics ...
Since when is fair competition such a bad thing?
If all 4 parties gained seats in the House and Senate then they would need to make coalition compromises to enact legislation. 3 parties could form a super majority vote that could over-ride a President's veto. The peoples' elected representatives now would have a majority voice on issues that they can agree on, laws that would move the nation forward. There can be wisdom in numbers of clear majority. On the next issue, it may only pass on a simple majority and be subject to veto. More might be accomplished this way -- and it is all possible under laws in force now -- that is the beauty of it.
This was the framer's intent IMHO -- to encourage political diversity. Or, make a seat for every ass ...
|