Wanting to help third parties get off the ground local to you and help progressives win more in your state? Join the Equal Vote Coalition and we can organize to help make a difference.
Want to start a grassroots initiative local to you specifically? Find out more here.
From what I am seeing in a few states is that some establishment Dems push back against it or tore it down, but the progressive Dem groups showed open support of it. I was tracking RCV in Nevada and Arizona specifically and there was not a recommendation to shoot it down, but the main Democratic Party in those states didn’t tell their voters to vote one way or the other from what I saw, only the progressives groups advocated for it though.
I would believe Colorado Dems shot it down though, as they did the same in a few other states. I think it’s still possible to sway public opinion and pressure certain Dems to be in support of Alternative Voting though. I don’t think there is a consensus to shoot it down 100%, but they shoot it down in instances where they might feel it threatens some of their hand picked Senate seats. If they think it would gain the party as a whole more seats on the state level or even federally I believe they could be convinced to back Alternative Voting.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting. I believe we should push for one of these other three alternatives to prevent uncommon instances where the least liked candidate still can win.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting. I believe we should push for one of these other three alternatives to prevent uncommon instances where the least liked candidate still can win.
A lemmitor shared This link to me that goes over the shortcomings of Ranked Choice voting. Still better then FPTP, but we can do more.
Anyone who saw the Lemmyvision competition, aussie.zone used a ranked choice voting method which was fun to see. (Even if their winning song won outright, it was interesting to see the host explain the insight ranking gave)
It does, and especially removes the spoiler effect, where voting for a US "third party" is seen as talking a vote away from the for favorable of the only two viable parties, leading to garbage coping mechanisms like "vote blue no matter who", saying you should vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you just because they're a lesser evil.
In those preferential systems, you can vote for the most trivial perfect candidate, even if you know they'll only get a few thousand votes, and it will still flow up to your preferred of the major parties. And I'm guessing that's a part of their steady rise of their middle crossbench they've been mentioning, meaning neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal/National Coalition have a full majority and must appeal to the smaller parties to pass any legislation they can't agree on (e.g. in their Senate, the Greens Party can demand progressive concessions because Labor+Greens+like-minded independents are enough to gain a majority, from what I understand). Their minor parties are growing and their big two are overall shrinking, it will be interesting to see what happens since the US election took some wind out of their conservative coalition's sails, similarly to Canada.
Y’all Australians really have one of the best systems with your compulsory voting and not having FPTP. I feel the only thing that would make your system better is if it was upgraded to use ranked robin or STAR voting instead, as the least liked candidate can still win in uncommon circumstances under RCV.
Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters. Let’s say there are three candidates A, B, and C and their vote totals are below.
A: 20 votes
B: 18 votes
C: 15 votes
In First Past The Post A wins.
Now, let’s give voters the option to select their top two choices so they can safely pick their favorite option first and while still having a safe choice secondary pick. In this case the election results are the following:
A: 1st pick 20 votes; 2nd pick 4 votes
B: 1st pick 14 votes; 2nd pick 12 votes
C: 1st pick 19 votes; 2nd pick 10 votes
B got the least votes in this different voting system, and B gets eliminated first. Then we move onto the second round of voting to compare the total votes of A vs C. A has 24 total votes and C has 29 total votes. In this example, C wins the election as they are the candidate most preferred by a majority of the voters. The majority winner still wins as they have the votes of a plurality of the electorate.
My example is a simplified explanation for alternative voting systems, the exact mechanism for each of them differs though. I specifically support Ranked Robin, STAR, or score as the specific alternative voting systems I would prefer over FPTP, as I believe they are all more fair and have the best outcomes for the majority of people expressing their preferences.
If we want elections to be more representative of what the majority of people want, then taking in more preferences of the voters only makes sense. They have less incentive to vote strategically for the same reasons, at least under the systems I mentioned. So for a real world example, most people can safely pick a third party candidate without worrying about the spoiler effect. This would be huge for properly showing just how much true support third parties have out there, because currently they have to compete for people that vote similarly between two or more parties.
You're answering the wrong question. That's a "how" answer, not a "why" answer. Surely there is a simple one-paragraph explanation of why FPTP is terrible