Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.
Ranked choice pls
alaska has it and lets just say the independant candidates can be weird
GOOD.
You suggest that the main party candidates can't be?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The same was said in 2024. And 2020. And 2016. And every election before that.
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.
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.
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".
Hey Democrats and Republicans, will you allow for the possible destruction of your parties? No? ...oh
The 2 party system only works for business and power. We need a system that works for the people.
I prefer Bob Loblaw's Law Blog
You, sir, are a mouthful.
I wish that was true in WA state. Incumbents and the typical 2-party won in landslides. Anyone independent or voicing out against the nonsense that politics has turned into was mostly put in the single digit percent range.
Although our voter turnout was near 18-22% across all districts, so hard to know what people are thinking when they don't fucking vote.
Does Washington not have a two-party system? Most states and the federal election are not explicitly two-party but are designed in such a way that there can never be a viable third party. It's a system problem, not a candidate problem. That's what the post is about.
But the people winning the elections by being second worst say that any changes to the voting system are too complicated for the electorate to understand.
It's a system where the two highest in the primary to the general, regardless of party. Sounds good on paper but it's still possible for the vote on one side to be split, similar to the spoiler effect, resulting in two of the weaker party winning when there are nearly dozens of candidates of the stronger parties sharing the votes.
And yeah, we need better elections (and not Ranked Choice either. Score or Approval are simple to explain and don't have those effects where you can help someone you don't want to win by voting for those you do)
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.
Never gonna happen. The duopoly is never gonna allow it.
Not happening as long as we have a pay-for-play system. Both Dems and republicans profit from having a corporate- and AIPAC- financed winner-take-all voting system.
Let’s prioritize on dealing with the elephant in the room, instead of making Christmas wish lists to Santa.
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.