this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

3972 readers
1200 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We're on our way to having the person likely to represent the district for a decade winning with 31% of the vote. It's a great system we've got.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is a sign of a healthy race, no? More options are a good thing no matter what and lower the threshold for plurality victory. I'll take 31% winning in a race of 11 different candidates than a 50.07% winning in a race of two.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yes and no. It's conceptually good, but really highlights the dysfunction of FPTP.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Lots of people entering is good as a measure of democratic engagement, but lots of people in a race distorts the result of a FPTP race away from something that could reliably be declared to represent the majority. We won't know that the person with a plurality won because they best represent of the desires of the voters or simply because an opposing ideology had more candidates and split their vote. A person with less than a third of the vote being the winner is not good democracy.