NPR:
Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.
A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House… Continue reading
The post “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” appeared first on Election Law Blog.
Ranked choice pls
Approval voting, please.
Anything clone-independent will make further reforms much easier.
True. Ranked choice is progress. My problem with it is that still makes polarizing politics an advantage.
Example: 3 candidates run, A is leftwing, B is more center (leftwing or right leaning), C is right wing. A and C both get 40% of rank 1 votes because they benefit from the polarized atmosphere, B only gets 20% of rank 1, so they are eliminated and their voters are run off to either A, C or dropped if they didn’t pick a second candidate.
Say after runoff A has 44%, and C has 45%. Or vice versa, it doesn’t matter. The winner doesn’t even have support of the majority of voters and polarized politics continues to be an advantage. But if you look at those who voted for A or C as their first choice, of the 40% for A 25% had B as their second, and of the 40% for C 18% had B as their second. So 43% of the voters gave a ranked 2 vote for B and 20% gave a ranked 1.
Approval voting is similar to ranked choice where you vote for every candidate you would be happy with. But you don’t rank them and there is not elimination and runoff. You just give 1 vote to every candidate you would approve of and the highest wins. So let’s look at the results with approval voting.
A has 44% approval. C has 45% approval. And B has 63% approval. B is the clear winner, despite being the first eliminated in Ranked Choice.
If the goal is to have a representational government that is approved of by the governed, where oppositional polarizing politics and manipulation holds less sway, then Approval voting is the goal to shoot for.
Few people want B over their extreme I think. They want their lesser desired B vote to run off to A. Approval disproportionately advantages the middle, least desired by all parties.
Well first, the middle is where it should be pushed if representational goverment is the goal. They should represent the most people. Not the most popular minority group on election day. Not your politics over everyone else’s no matter what. But also, it can work in favor of the the more extreme candidate too when the electorate feels like the more central, safer option has the better chance and vote accordingly.
Example, the Socialist candidate is charismatic, popular, and has good ideas, but the term socialism leaves people uneasy or unsure if they can get enough support. So under Ranked Choice, many hedge their bets and vote Democrat as their first rank and the socialist as their second. 12% for as first rank for the socialist, 55% for the democrat, and 33% for the republican. After runoff, the socialist is elminated and dems win. But with approval, 45% of the 55% of dems actually approve of the socialist. Now the socialist has 57% support. The results then entirely hinge on on how many socialist first voters also support dems.
In such a case, shouldn’t they have voted 1 social 2 dem? Approval voting is fine, it allows cross aisle winners which are impossible now, but definitely has the chance of being a weak middle that’s always walking on eggshells.
I personally wish we used issue voting: each candidate takes a test, then you take a test, and an algorithm matches your answers with the candidate to avoid a huge number of problems with media driven campaigns.
Not if you think socialist won’t get enough/majority support. There is still a spoiler effect with ranked choice due to the elimination.
Imagine socialist gets 35% of first choice, dem gets 28%, republican gets 47%. Dem gets dropped but only 6% of the 28% also ranked the socialist while 25% of socialist first voters seconded dems. Then republican wins even though dems had more support overall. If you are being strategic and expect that sort of outcome, even if you prefer the socialist, you still might ranke the dem as a 1 to prevent that occurrence and ensure that at least your second choice wins.
Approval is more idealistic, but it also incentivizes idealism and cooperation. If people don’t approve of you or the job you have done, they don’t vote for you when they have a better alternative. And people of different parties can campaign together, boost one another, cooperate to get stuff done, etc. and boost their own approval numbers in the process.
And I don’t hate the issues based idea, so long as the tests, questions, and results are not controlled by any political bodies and have completely open processes for oversight. And there is also no reason that such compatibility and approval voting couldn’t coexist either. In that case the approval would be based on the policy positions, not the individual. There are kinks to work out there. For example, if someone lies on the tests, or you agree with them on the majority of the policies, but have other valid reasons to not support them like a particularly important policy for you that they differ on, or they have a criminal history, etc.
That’s why I established residency in a State with Rank Choice
There are only two states with ranked choice voting, I think: Maine and Alaska. A number of smaller municipalities also have it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
alaska has it and lets just say the independant candidates can be weird
GOOD.
You suggest that the main party candidates can’t be?
the main party candidates generally don’t sue their ex husbands over vaccinating their kids
Weirder than the Epstein class!?
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
Ranked choice voting open to all.
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
It has already been preemptively made illegal in several states.
We’re also open to executing politicians for treason when they hold more allegiance to money and Israel than the people they represent.
Like seriously NPR. Clean it up a bit and ask that fucking question. Report on how many people you interview agree with that sentiment.
Report on actual sentiment.
That critical 5% that can make a party completely lose. DemSocs can do it to Democrats in pretty much the same way as Libertarians can do it to Republicans.
Hey Democrats and Republicans, will you allow for the possible destruction of your parties? No? …oh
Remind me which party is the one that wants to send armed enforcers to voting places?
When someone on the internet ignores the spoiler effect: You miserable cretin! It’s been obvious since the 2000 election! You’re clearly a Russian LLM.
When someone running for office ignores the spoiler effect: This innocent flower just has so many bigger things to worry about. I’m sure they’d oppose FPTP if they only knew.
Our de facto two party system isn’t statutory. It’s not written in the constitution that there can only be two parties. It’s just the natural consequence of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post election system. All a candidate has to do is win 51% of the votes to get 100% of the political power. It makes third party candidates essentially nonviable. That’s what would need to change if we want to ditch the two party system.
Plug for https://fairvote.org/ . We have a long way before ranked choice voting gets to federal elections, but many local elections are using it now and once people are familiar with it we can hopefully push for more far -reaching adoption.
It’s not in the constitution, but the power of voting lies in the states. So we’d need state to slowly change their voting systems for this to happen properly.
The electoral college for nationals is a whole different ballpark. Also not in the constitution, but I think that still lies with states?
They’re open to big changes because corporations have captured our political parties and neither party answers to the population, you know, like a functional democracy. Citizens United and deregulation of corporations is where things went wrong.
The 2 party system only works for business and power. We need a system that works for the people.
Two parties? Who is the second party?
“Evil Light” I think.
The two-party system in the United States consists of “Republicans” and “Everyone else”.
Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too….
Okay, but like, what tiny percentage of those people could understand the concept, much less have an opinion about it? heh
Ranked Choice Voting. If anyone is curious just know that it’s illegal in some places in USA. Similar with general work striking.
general work striking is actually illegal across all of the US unfortunately. The Taft–Hartley Act actually forbids solidarity strikes as a whole, which is what a general strike is. It also forbids secondary strikes, which is someone boycotting or striking to show support for another strike or group.
It’s really sad the amount of rights that the country has stripped away from it’s standard working class.
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
It’s my personal opinion that a lot of the support for Ranked Choice specifically is astroturfing from groups that don’t want real change. It’s nearly as bad as First Past the Post and is still subject to spoiler effects for example. Also too confusing for voters to trust.
My preferences are for approval or score voting. With those there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.
It’s not astroturfig. That’s the way a lot of local elections (and 1-2 statewide elections) work. It’s a system that has precedent, so it gets the most support.
But yes, there’s more than one way to shear a sheep. I’m open to any variety of choices not based on winner-take-all.
there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.
RCV barely increases the odds for someone you don’t want. The whole idea is that it rewards moderate views so that “everyone’s 2nd choice” is better than a radical first choice. The Spoiler effect will almost always be there, but Nothing is worse than FPTP for that effect. Especially with Score based voting that can (and given experience with internet ratings, will) degenerate to “0 or max score”. Score based voting works best with high information electorate, and the US… hell, pretty much all global politics aren’t full of people laser focused on every little law.
I like Approval based voting, though. The issue lies more in excessive runoffs when we get the most popular candidates (or the worst case where none of the candidate are approved enough).
I prefer Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog
You, sir, are a mouthful.
Of course the voters are open to change… however we need a non First past the post system to even dip our toes in change, and in order to get that in place we need a majority from… that’s the real hinderance with fixing politics in general is the people who currently are in charge are the ones who have to change it. It’s like if in a sport we needed to pass a ban of a steroid that’s been rampant in a sport for 50 years… and all rule changes must go through the currently seated champions of the sport.
Yes, these are the types of structural changes that need to be made before all the wishful thinking guiding people’s voting behaviors can amount to anything positive. Looking at the current landscape, ranked choice specifically, Democrats are receptive to the idea because they want leftists to at least put Democrats second while the GOP hates the idea so much they’re passing laws per-emptively banning ranked choice for more or less the same reason. There’s the path forward.
This is probably the second worse time to have a movement like this.
The only time I could think that it would be worse is splitting the left wing vote before the 2028 elections.
This article isn’t about having more parties within the same electoral system (which indeed does not make sense), but changing the electoral system to make more parties viable.
Great. When exactly is a good time to fix this broken system?
Oh, the same time as party building - while nobody is engaged at all.
The same was said in 2024. And 2020. And 2016. And every election before that.
No offense but if you can’t see why it’s a big problem now you’re part of it.
I’ll wait and see which way the Democrats decide to go. If it’s another “come together, let’s bring back bipartisanship” deal, then it’s a waste to cast a blue ballot.
Yea and if that doesn’t happen leftists will find another reason not to vote.
Sounds like they’re a critical voting bloc, you should inform the Democrats how to win.
Democrats should move further right and cater to people who actually vote and give up on leftists.
Worked for Clinton
I’m all for the MAGA renegade party!
Either that, or massive voter disillusionment on the right that causes them to sit out from the election in protest.
Let them MFs split up. I’m for walking in lock-step with the Blue vote, and dragging the centrists leftward. Once things can be truly changed, then we can split along ideological lines.
The MAGA renegade party is a pipe dream they’ll all fall in line and vote red come primary and general.
The only thing this type of thing does is split the left wing.
This^
Never Trumpers today are just called “MAGA”
At this point, I’m hoping the left has wisened up and won’t fall for it anymore. History needs to stop repeating itself. Leftists get defeated because they can’t put aside their internal squabbles and form a united front.
I’m going to assume you think liberals are leftists?
No, but sometimes we have to form tenuous alliances to save our asses.
The DSA is never gaining traction in a fascist state where voting is actively manipulated and resistance is persecuted. Remember Franco crushed communist/leftist resistance and dominated Spain for 40 years. The republicans lost because of their internal squabbling. They couldn’t put their differences aside to further a show of strength.
We’re too little in number to make an impact right now. We need to keep getting DSA endorsed candidates in from the ground level. We need to primary candidates in such a way as to pull the party to the left. People need to see that socialist governance is rational. Mamdani is already paving the way.
What we cannot afford is a split. We should be building a united front of anyone left of center, not tearing it down. Getting into purity tests right now when we’re stuck in a burning house isn’t a winning strategy.
Well I’m here to tell you democrats are right of center at best. There is no party in the US, even the DSA, that would be considered left. Leftism begins at anti capitalism and they all support the status quo. Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.
Either we’re too big a voting bloc to ignore that we lose elections for dems because we don’t vote for them, or we’re such a small minority that dems don’t need us to win elections. But too many people, especially dems, like to blame us for when they lose but then refuse to cooperate and blame us that they didn’t win.
This whole “let’s not divide the left vote” is simply another uneducated talking point that does nothing but keep the pendulum swinging.
Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.
I think we’re trying to get to the same point here. By “pulling the party left,” it means defeating neoliberal candidates across the country and putting pressure on the left to grow a spine and acquiesce to anti-capitalists, aka entryism.
The material conditions are not right yet to go rogue and third-party people. We’re stuck in a two-party winner-take-all election system, unless we can get enough of our guys in to undo all of that. “We must walk the same streets as our oppressors,” to paraphrase.
I still have hope for the midterm elections. But electorialism may not be enough. Efforts need to be focused or organizing ground up for the general strike - the one that brings our civilization to a grinding halt and twists the arm of the capitalists so hard, that they’re forced into accommodation. Violent uprising is untenable in the USA. We’re technologically at a disadvantage with our lil’ rifles and handguns, without any combat training, to boot. No organization of violent resistance is happening under fascism without being brutally suppressed.
I’m for the great split. But the fascist hard-right party needs to be fractured and defeated first. They need to succumb to internal infighting before we do.
It’s incredibly effective. If I were a campaign planner for the conservatives, getting the left to complain about their own candidates would be the low hanging fruit.
They’re not going to learn.
After 2024 I don’t think they ever will.
It’s a snowball’s chance in hell of actually happening, but this would be the best time for this to happen if it lead to proper new policy that changes how voted are counted.
Now I see what you mean about the idea of a big Left state splitting its electoral votes. Which would be bad in 2028. But the snowball’s chance is most/all states shifting to a non FPTP voting system and making a 3rd party viable.
This can be done on local level but on national level you would need constitutional reform which is extremely unlikely.
Nonsense. The constitution grants states almost complete control over the handling of national elections. There’s nothing stopping them from doing ranked choice for president/Congress.
You’re technically right but the real issue is electoral college. For ranked choice to work on national level you would have to get rid of if. Which would require constitutional reform. Without it ranked choice and winner-take-all electoral college would result in a big mess. The most likely scenario would be for Republicans to organize and vote for one candidate while Democrats would split the vote between establishment Dem and some DSA candidate. To actually end 2-party system without giving the presidency to Republicans forever you would need ranked choice popular vote or 2-turn elections.
The electoral collage only applies to the presidency, though. The power of Congress matches or exceeds that of the president. It would make a huge difference in which senators/representatives are elected.
