3 ms·

Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. It's also an irrelevant topic when it comes to the electoral co

by pedrocr 10y ago

Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. It's also an irrelevant topic when it comes to the electoral college which solves exactly nothing in creating a fair election, it's just strictly worse than the alternatives.

thomasfoster96 10y ago
> Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. Well, two candidates have a possibility of winning. The nature of first-past-the-post elections means that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein can still affect the outcome if their votes change the result.
macspoofing 10y ago
>Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. Is it? At the start of the election there were approximately 20+ presidential candidates, with around half having a reasonable chance of being elected. Four major candidates (Sanders, Trump, Stein, Johnson) were essentially unaffiliated with the major parties, though two ran for the respective party nomination. And even though two parties dominate Congress, members are much more undisciplined when it comes to voting along party lines than in PR-based systems. Hell, have the Republicans don't even support their nominee. American democracy is messy but vibrant.
- pedrocr 10y ago
  At the point the electoral college becomes a factor all the primaries are already ran and there are only two candidates with a chance at the election. Perot came closer in the past, but there hasn't been any third party candidate since with a shot at the election. Having something like instant runoff would be nice to enable more third-party candidates to make a multi-election push at the presidency but just doing a single-turn popular vote simple majority would be a very big improvement on the current mess.

3 ms·

Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. It's also an irrelevant topic when it comes to the electoral co

by pedrocr 10y ago

thomasfoster96 10y ago
> Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. Well, two candidates have a possibility of winning. The nature of first-past-the-post elections means that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein can still affect the outcome if their votes change the result.
macspoofing 10y ago
>Except when there are only two alternatives which is the de facto situation in the US right now. Is it? At the start of the election there were approximately 20+ presidential candidates, with around half having a reasonable chance of being elected. Four major candidates (Sanders, Trump, Stein, Johnson) were essentially unaffiliated with the major parties, though two ran for the respective party nomination. And even though two parties dominate Congress, members are much more undisciplined when it comes to voting along party lines than in PR-based systems. Hell, have the Republicans don't even support their nominee. American democracy is messy but vibrant.
- pedrocr 10y ago
  At the point the electoral college becomes a factor all the primaries are already ran and there are only two candidates with a chance at the election. Perot came closer in the past, but there hasn't been any third party candidate since with a shot at the election. Having something like instant runoff would be nice to enable more third-party candidates to make a multi-election push at the presidency but just doing a single-turn popular vote simple majority would be a very big improvement on the current mess.