5 ms·
If you like the stagnation of a two-party system, and want third parties to always have a near-zero chance of winning, then yes, plurality voting is the best sy
by domador 10y ago
If you like the stagnation of a two-party system, and want third parties to always have a near-zero chance of winning, then yes, plurality voting is the best system. Those two parties can consolidate their power and permanently keep out third parties, regardless of how corrupt/disliked the two parties become.
Instant runoff, among other things, keeps major parties on their toes and more responsive to the electorate's needs, since if voters are sufficiently angry they have a realistic option of putting a minority/third party in power.
- marcoperaza 10y agoI think that the near-rise of Bernie Sanders, and the successful election of Donald Trump, proves that the establishments of the two parties don't have a complete stranglehold on power.
- domador 10y agoNot a complete stranglehold, but a near-complete one. Both of these candidates had to jump through the two major U.S. parties' hoops to have a chance at being elected (and one of them was very effectively stopped by his party's gatekeepers).
- marcoperaza 10y agoSanders didn't play to win and dug his own grave. In one of the Democratic debates: "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" If I was a Sanders donor, I would have been very upset at that moment.
- lakkal 10y agoI am a Sanders donor, and I wasn't upset by it at all. (He was saying they should move on to more important topics).
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe point of political campaign is to win, not to take the high ground. He took money from millions of people and flushed it down the toilet with that line.