What is a feasible way to move away from plurality voting?

[theaocp]

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2020, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

It’s toxic and needs to make way for ranked choice or something better.

&t=787s&ab_channel=Primer

[Codeine]

1. Why is it toxic? nt

[regnaD kciN]

9. Plurality voting (i.e. "first past the post") means...

...that you're really locked into a two-candidate race because, if a third candidate comes in, they will draw votes away from the one they're closest to, thus giving the one farthest away the win.

Say, for example, that Bernie Sanders (who actively refused such a course, before anyone says anything) had decided to run as the Green Party nominee, and had grabbed 10% of the vote; practically all of that 10% would have come from Joe Biden, and so Donald Trump would have won even if he only got a minority of the total votes, even if the split was 46 T - 44B - 10 S, meaning that those on the left had cast 54% of the vote.

Plurality voting encourages "lesser of two evil" nominees, which might work in most cases, but also causes a lot of people to not bother voting at all, because they're unenthused by either candidate.

Compare that to ranked-choice voting: in the same scenario above, after the first count, Sanders would be removed as a candidate, and the votes that went to him would be awarded to whoever his voters picked as their second choice, which would almost certainly be near 100% Biden. So. you'd avoid the perils of splitting the vote, while also avoiding the perils of reducing each race to the two most "electable" candidates that might not get as many people out to vote.

[Klaralven]

2. Ranked choice would be particularly good for primary elections where there are multiple candidates.

[Alpeduez21]

3. It's a real problem

because BOTH parties are heavily invested in maintaining the two party system as it is. Throughout the decades both parties have been greatly cooperative in keeping the voting system as it is.

[thucythucy]

4. A better idea might be to try to minimize the inequities of the Electoral College.

The "Wyoming option" might be the best way to do that.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Ranked choice voting IS plurality voting, almost by definition.

The only time the ranked choices are allocated is if the original vote is a plurality.

I'm in favor of it - but at its core is is plurality voting because it awards the position to someone who won less than 50% the initial votes cast. It is more likely to produce the most satisfatory compromise than merely allowing the top plurality winner to take office (since it is very likely that the plurality came about because candidates with shared values often split the initial vote.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Would need to limit the number of candidates, which is probably unconstitutional.

Could do jungle primary, all on same ballot, top two go to general. Not a fan of that, either, but it makes the final step a binary choice.

[LiberalLovinLug]

7. With two parties there's a natural inclination to divide down the middle

Proportional Representation of some form is probably the most advanced democratic voting system.

In the US you may have a hypothetical situation of 4 parties. For the sake of argument, Libertarian, Green, Democratic, and Republican. If seats were rewarded based on the percent of over all popular vote, people would feel freer to vote for a more compatible party for them. So you'd also increase voters turnout.

It would never be a given, but for the most part Democrats would work with the Greens (or Our Revolution) and Republicans would work with the Libertarians... If they needed a bill support.

There'd be actual negotiation and compromise. Groups would be forced to get along to come to a majority agreement

[marybourg]

8. We don't need to change existing law every

time something works out less than ideally. Remember “unanticipated consequences”?