If I were forced to choose between two choices and I didn’t like either, I would not consider myself living in a democracy. Democracy is pointless if you aren’t able to vote for a candidate that you actually like.
The solution is reform. If your democracy is not proportional, then it is not a democracy.
Ranked Choice Voting is an improvement over plurality voting, but as I’ve written elsewhere (too lazy to look it up), I think any election with a single winner is still going to end up with weird/disappointing outcomes at least 90% of the time. I think this post is referring to the governor of New York, no? I would rather see a system where the state legislature is elected proportionally, and then the governor would be selected from a coalition agreement between the governing parties - similar to what you see in many national, state and provincial systems across Europe. This system isn’t without its downsides, but at least it’s harder for incumbent parties to force voters to support them even if those voters don’t want to.
Of course, this is a much more fundamental reform, so it’s harder to adopt. RCV is definitely an improvement. It’s great to see some progress happening out there in the USA.
No voting system by itself will do much. We need to switch to a proportional system or else minority parties won’t have a fair shot at representation. If a party gets 2% of the vote, they should get 2% of the seats. Not possible with single-winner methods.
Perfectly fair. Fair doesn’t mean you get your way every time. If they did get enough votes they could win, but by virtue of not being on the ballot it’s harder to do. What do you suggest, adding all 350mil+ US citizens to the ballot?
I suggest moving to proportional representation. Essentially, proportional systems try to ensure that if a party gets 5% of the votes, they get 5% of the seats. It’s obviously not a solution for single-winner elections like mayor, but it’s a great system for councils and legislatures. That way, it’s much more likely that voting for a minority party candidate will actually get you some representation in office. (There’s a million ways to it, with some trying to place an emphasis on local representation and others trying to get as close to proportional as possible, but they’re all leagues ahead of pure single-winner systems.)
Now, you might be saying “you didn’t solve the problem for single winner methods!” Never fear, we can use a voting system that satisfies the sincere favorite criterion. My favorite is Approval Voting, but any of them will do. The sincere favorite criterion says that the optimal voting strategy should always include giving your true favorite maximum support, whatever that means under that particular voting system.
A comprehensive look at voter turnout from 2000 onwards reveals that the average turnout rate for primary elections is 27% of registered voters, compared to 60.5% for general elections. It should be noted that less than half of the voters who cast a ballot in the general election participate in primaries.
If I were forced to choose between two choices and I didn’t like either, I would not consider myself living in a democracy. Democracy is pointless if you aren’t able to vote for a candidate that you actually like.
The solution is reform. If your democracy is not proportional, then it is not a democracy.
Without RCV, there is no path to better candidates. There is a reason so many conservative states have been proactively banning it.
Ranked Choice Voting is an improvement over plurality voting, but as I’ve written elsewhere (too lazy to look it up), I think any election with a single winner is still going to end up with weird/disappointing outcomes at least 90% of the time. I think this post is referring to the governor of New York, no? I would rather see a system where the state legislature is elected proportionally, and then the governor would be selected from a coalition agreement between the governing parties - similar to what you see in many national, state and provincial systems across Europe. This system isn’t without its downsides, but at least it’s harder for incumbent parties to force voters to support them even if those voters don’t want to.
Of course, this is a much more fundamental reform, so it’s harder to adopt. RCV is definitely an improvement. It’s great to see some progress happening out there in the USA.
No voting system by itself will do much. We need to switch to a proportional system or else minority parties won’t have a fair shot at representation. If a party gets 2% of the vote, they should get 2% of the seats. Not possible with single-winner methods.
Tbf, you can write in anyone you like. Will they win? No. But you can do that.
Tbf, that’s not really fair, is it?
Perfectly fair. Fair doesn’t mean you get your way every time. If they did get enough votes they could win, but by virtue of not being on the ballot it’s harder to do. What do you suggest, adding all 350mil+ US citizens to the ballot?
I suggest moving to proportional representation. Essentially, proportional systems try to ensure that if a party gets 5% of the votes, they get 5% of the seats. It’s obviously not a solution for single-winner elections like mayor, but it’s a great system for councils and legislatures. That way, it’s much more likely that voting for a minority party candidate will actually get you some representation in office. (There’s a million ways to it, with some trying to place an emphasis on local representation and others trying to get as close to proportional as possible, but they’re all leagues ahead of pure single-winner systems.)
Now, you might be saying “you didn’t solve the problem for single winner methods!” Never fear, we can use a voting system that satisfies the sincere favorite criterion. My favorite is Approval Voting, but any of them will do. The sincere favorite criterion says that the optimal voting strategy should always include giving your true favorite maximum support, whatever that means under that particular voting system.
Then it’s not a democracy. But you still live here.
You are able to do that, it’s the entire point of a primary.
It’s not the best system, certainly, but it does mean you actually get more than 2 choices.
Sort of?
https://goodparty.org/blog/article/primary-vs-general-election
All sorts of problems have solutions. I see this a lot in the tech space, like the need to save a video, Adblock, whatever.
…But generally, people don’t use them. Or know about them.
US primaries feel similar, where voters technically have the ability to choose candidates but, statistically, they don’t.
Attention is finite. Many dont know about primaries. To me, giving people the choice doesn’t matter if it’s obscure and inaccessibly designed.
Voters: refuse to vote in primary
Also Voters: “Why are the nominees so terrible?”