As far as I understand the Founding Fathers didn’t want to create a two-party system. One article explains:
This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.
The majority voting effectively prevents candidates who don’t win either the nomination of the Democrat and Republican party from being elected.
Approval voting would allow candidates who win the nomination of either party to be elected. Given the dislike for the power of political parties that would be very much in line with the goals of the Founding Fathers.
Given that the Founding Fathers hated political parties, knowing what we know now, they certainly wouldn’t have chosen first-past-the-post over approval voting.
Agreed, but that doesn’t make for a legal case today. The Originalism many on today’s Court subscribe to does not take into consideration the intent of lawmakers (in this case the framers), but instead simply asks: what would reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be? This is original meaning theory, in contrast with original intent theory.
As far as I understand the Founding Fathers didn’t want to create a two-party system. One article explains:
The majority voting effectively prevents candidates who don’t win either the nomination of the Democrat and Republican party from being elected.
Approval voting would allow candidates who win the nomination of either party to be elected. Given the dislike for the power of political parties that would be very much in line with the goals of the Founding Fathers.
Given that the Founding Fathers hated political parties, knowing what we know now, they certainly wouldn’t have chosen first-past-the-post over approval voting.
Agreed, but that doesn’t make for a legal case today. The Originalism many on today’s Court subscribe to does not take into consideration the intent of lawmakers (in this case the framers), but instead simply asks: what would reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be? This is original meaning theory, in contrast with original intent theory.