I would love to get rid of the two party system so that if we elect the "best person", they will be allowed to vote their conscience and not just the party line. (I know that is political, but at least it is completely non-partisan). I'll delete it if anyone objects.
Our first pass the post voting system pretty much ensures a two party outcome. If we could get on board with a better one, like ranked choice/instant run-off voting or at least approval voting, third parties would stand a better chance. Unfortunately the two-party system is one of the few things that both parties can agree on (neither wants competition from third parties). That being said, RCV is starting to make progress. I look forward to voting for it on a MA ballot measure this election.
Why wouldn't the
How does that steal the election? It would only work if they can come up with a candidate that 50% of the electorate approves of, which is the whole goal. If they just flooded the race with candidates who no one cares about or wants, those people would get eliminated quickly in the first few rounds of re-allocation because those candidates would be ranked lowest or not at all. Furthermore it only stops the presumptive winner on the first count if they can get enough people to rank their flood candidates above the presumptive winner, which indicates the presumptive winner isn't actually that strongly preferred. If the electorate strongly (meaning >50% of the electorate) prefer a single candidate enough to rank them first, it doesn't matter how many other candidates there are.
Who says nobody cares about the other candidates? I may not understand this voting scheme at all, but my instincts tell me it's a set-up for the majority party to remain in power when faced with an unpopular incumbent that will probably lose to the minority party. To knock the challenger down below 50% they'd flood the race with alternative "friendlies". Not possible you say?
Predominant
When Bill Clinton got elected with, what?, 38% of the vote because Ross Perot was in the race, are you saying Clinton would have lost because a second choice would have peeled off votes from him to Perot and from Perot to H.W.
Thank you.
Pull out your pocket BOR and read it.
BOR ?
Since I was the last one to post, do I get the IBTL prize?
I hope it was mine!
We have no way of knowing because we don't know who the Perot voters' second choice was. Under RCV Perot, the candidate with the least first choice votes (assuming that the first choice votes would be the same as the actual election results which isn't actually what is likely due to strategic voting), would be eliminated and his votes re-distributed per his voters' second choice. If enough Perot voters liked clinton enough to put him as second that he reaches 50%, then yes he would win, if not then Bush would hit 50% and win.
I must be dull. If you substitute "Majority party" where you say "moderate" and "Minority party" where you say "extreme", it seems to prove my point: protect the majority (which is probably the bad incumbent).
I thought this RCV thing was supposed to be the cure for voting the party line. But you make a case that seems to strengthen the party over the individual, no?
The electoral college is a whole separate kettle of fish which also promotes the two party system. As you point out, if you have a strong third party, it would be expected that no one reaches 270 and as a result the incumbent House party will win the presidency. As you say, the electoral college inherently promotes a two party system as third parties will act to produce an even *less* democratic (little d, not big D) outcome when coupled with the electoral college.
Please watch the videos! As I said, they explain it much better than I can.
After the Perot debacle, I doubt very much people fear wasting their vote, they more are afraid of empowering the other candidate.
Which is exactly what RCV prevents (wasting a vote == empowering the candidate you don't like)! Honestly I will say it one more time, please watch the videos. If you aren't willing to even learn about what RCV is or how it works, I am not sure what to say.
It's not the EC per se, it's that a lot of states use "winner takes all" and mandated voting for the candidate that won the state. And now some have joined a compact to give all their votes to the one that wins the popular vote.
Seeing a lot of campaigning or wooing being done in Wyoming or Rhode Island are you?
I'm pretty too busy for watching videos now. How about you read this and let me know where they are wrong?
Not necessarily. I looked it up once, and of the five times in our history that the electoral college went the opposite way of the popular vote, in every case it was the Democratic candidate who failed to gain the presidency as a result.
