4 ms·

The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a third party from winning. Range voting does not have this problem.

velodrome 9y ago
> The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a third party from winning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deb... Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the CPD's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls to be included in presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of the lawsuits has been successful.
- mtgx 9y ago
  I'd still say FPTP is like 80% of the reason why third-parties can't rise to power in the U.S. and elsewhere, but yes, the two main parties have added further obstacles to make the rise of third-parties in the U.S. from almost impossible to virtually impossible (save for a country-wide "wake up" and a huge rally behind a "surprise" new party, etc)
  - matttproud 9y ago
    Want to see it rid itself of first-past-the-post? Support and donate to these folks: http://www.fairvote.org/ http://www.fairvote.org/ They are — as best as I can tell — the only group aiming to reform the electoral formulas used across the country. The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road. Duverger's Law will hold it hostage otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
    - twobyfour 9y ago
      > The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road. Of course we can. Especially if they happen to primarily benefit the people already in power and in charge; especially if nobody runs on an election reform platform; especially if most of the electorate doesn't understand or can't/doesn't want to make the mental effort to understand what's wrong with FPTP; and especially if people keep getting distracted by other (admittedly very important) issues during campaigns.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      Condorcet Voting and multi-member district representation would go much further toward a more egalitarian political system than the stuff FairVote focuses on. None of these things, however, is as effective as sustained, direct action. Even with our broken one-party-two-factions system this is so.
- dforrestwilson 9y ago
  http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/a-federal-court-chewed-up-and-spit-out-jill-stein-and-gary-johnsons-debate-lawsuit/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/a-federal-court-chewed-up-... ^Just going to leave this here
  - matttproud 9y ago
    Daily Caller is worse than a rag. I don't want to insult useful pieces of fabric.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Wow. What a joke of a ruling. “Every four years, we suffer through the celebration of democracy (and national nightmare) that is a presidential election,” Brown wrote in her opinion. “And, in the end, one person is selected to occupy our nation’s highest office. But in every hard-fought presidential election there are losers. And, with quadrennial regularity, those losers turn to the courts.” They turn to the courts because they're systematically excluded from the debate stage.
    - notfromhere 9y ago
      There's not enough debate time in the world to make Jill Stein poll above 15%.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        Yeah, and if she got up on a debate stage, her party would be forced to ditch her and form a real left-wing party.
        notfromhere 9y ago
        Given that they actually try running a candidate every four years rather than focusing locally, they're not a very serious party
- cvsh 9y ago
  No, it's definitely our electoral system. FPTP fundamentally shifts a system toward two major parties, and no amount of tinkering with debates or other reforms at the margins will make third parties competitive. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - philipov 9y ago
    Why is it a competition for a singular explanation? Why can't both be necessary but not independently sufficient conditions? I sense a middle being excluded somewhere.
cvsh 9y ago
This is so overwhelmingly the root problem that I almost can't believe the authors would spend so much time on anything else. In a more modern electoral system, most of their other points would fall into place naturally.
- daurnimator 9y ago
  I always thought so, but then I look at Australia, which has instant runoff voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Australi...). And we too have almost a two party system (Labor vs Liberals), the other parties get a seat here and there, but the big two don't show any signs of going away.
  - vog 9y ago
    That's strange. Here in Germany it works out quite well. Sure, we do have two large parties as well (SPD and CDU), but there are several smaller parties which do have significant results, and hence significant influence. The classic example was the smaller party FDP some decades ago. Although SPD and CDU each had many more seats than FDP, both needed the FDP to have more than 50% of the seats. So whoever the FDP joined with, that party became part of the government, while the other became opposition. Some people even subjected that this was too much power/influence for such a small party. (Then, more smaller parties received a significant amount of votes, and things became even more complicated, but also more interesting!)
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    You also have compulsory voting, yes? Can you explicitly vote for nobody?
    - NeutronBoy 9y ago
      Yes. Our compulsory voting is really "compulsory voting". It's "compulsory turn up to a polling station and get your name marked off". You can drop an empty ballot in the box, draw penises on it, or even just turn and walk out of the polling place. Also, the OP underestimates the impact of the minor parties. While there are two major parties, one of them is a coalition between two parties (Liberals and the Nationals), and there's a significant block of smaller parties and independents that are big enough that when they vote together they can have a deciding vote on legislation.
arca_vorago 9y ago
I just have to say, this issue is one I have thought quite a bit about, and I'm not convinced the voting system itself is so bad. Don't get me wrong, I see the major downsides of a first past the post system, and I'm open to change, but in looking at the actual problem what I see is a different issue, namely, gerrymandering, at both federal and state level. My primary proposition as a systematic fix for gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts and reduce existing ones size. Of course the other primary factor in all this is a fourth estate failing to do its job. Also, duvergers law is not so concrete a truism as people like to think.
- vonzeppelin 9y ago
  What do you think about removing the cap on the House of Representatives at 435? I think Democrats should really support this completely Constitutional fix to the electoral college instead of advocating that it be removed.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Interestingly US initially had much lower person per representative ratio. If that ratio was maintained, we would have thousands of representatives in the House, and so would be more representative.
    - vonzeppelin 9y ago
      I wanted to look it up and this is what I found: >With the compromise constitutional ratio (1:30,000) in mind and given that the U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are currently about 313.9 million inhabitants of the United States, if the Constitution were being followed, there would be approximately 10,463 members of the House of Representatives. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21571-why-is-the-constitutional-representation-ratio-ignored https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/2157... I'd be okay with this. It would really change the make up of our government. Senators would seem far more powerful in comparison. The electoral college would be completely different as well. Using the population data on Wikipedia, at 1:30,000 California would have 1309 representatives and Wyoming would have 20. That would mean in the electoral college California would be worth 1311 points and Wyoming 22 vs 55 and 3 today.
Chathamization 9y ago
That's not really true. There are plenty of places where the voting system wouldn't hurt third parties (districts where one part or the other is practically non-existent, districts where the incumbent doesn't face a challenger, non-partisan races), but you largely don't see them making any progress there either. The VPP is the most successful third party (most state reps), and it's only active in one state. The complete inability for other third parties to make almost any progress underscores the problems with the parties themselves (independents have been more successful than third party candidates).
vkou 9y ago
The voting system is not the problem. The logistics of running a successful campaign are. The amount of advertising, canvassing, fundraising, and other effort that goes into American politics is insane - and unless you have the backing of a party, you are quite literally fighting an uphill battle. Recall the republican voter list leaks last year. Now, consider how much money it would take to gather that much information, at that level of fidelity. Now, consider how much of an advantage a sanctioned party candidate has, when you run against them.

velodrome 9y ago

> The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a third party from winning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deb... Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the CPD's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls to be included in presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of the lawsuits has been successful.

mtgx 9y ago
I'd still say FPTP is like 80% of the reason why third-parties can't rise to power in the U.S. and elsewhere, but yes, the two main parties have added further obstacles to make the rise of third-parties in the U.S. from almost impossible to virtually impossible (save for a country-wide "wake up" and a huge rally behind a "surprise" new party, etc)
- matttproud 9y ago
  Want to see it rid itself of first-past-the-post? Support and donate to these folks: http://www.fairvote.org/ http://www.fairvote.org/ They are — as best as I can tell — the only group aiming to reform the electoral formulas used across the country. The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road. Duverger's Law will hold it hostage otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    > The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road. Of course we can. Especially if they happen to primarily benefit the people already in power and in charge; especially if nobody runs on an election reform platform; especially if most of the electorate doesn't understand or can't/doesn't want to make the mental effort to understand what's wrong with FPTP; and especially if people keep getting distracted by other (admittedly very important) issues during campaigns.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Condorcet Voting and multi-member district representation would go much further toward a more egalitarian political system than the stuff FairVote focuses on. None of these things, however, is as effective as sustained, direct action. Even with our broken one-party-two-factions system this is so.
dforrestwilson 9y ago
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/a-federal-court-chewed-up-and-spit-out-jill-stein-and-gary-johnsons-debate-lawsuit/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/a-federal-court-chewed-up-... ^Just going to leave this here
- matttproud 9y ago
  Daily Caller is worse than a rag. I don't want to insult useful pieces of fabric.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Wow. What a joke of a ruling. “Every four years, we suffer through the celebration of democracy (and national nightmare) that is a presidential election,” Brown wrote in her opinion. “And, in the end, one person is selected to occupy our nation’s highest office. But in every hard-fought presidential election there are losers. And, with quadrennial regularity, those losers turn to the courts.” They turn to the courts because they're systematically excluded from the debate stage.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    There's not enough debate time in the world to make Jill Stein poll above 15%.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      Yeah, and if she got up on a debate stage, her party would be forced to ditch her and form a real left-wing party.
      - notfromhere 9y ago
        Given that they actually try running a candidate every four years rather than focusing locally, they're not a very serious party
cvsh 9y ago
No, it's definitely our electoral system. FPTP fundamentally shifts a system toward two major parties, and no amount of tinkering with debates or other reforms at the margins will make third parties competitive. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- philipov 9y ago
  Why is it a competition for a singular explanation? Why can't both be necessary but not independently sufficient conditions? I sense a middle being excluded somewhere.

cvsh 9y ago

This is so overwhelmingly the root problem that I almost can't believe the authors would spend so much time on anything else. In a more modern electoral system, most of their other points would fall into place naturally.

daurnimator 9y ago
I always thought so, but then I look at Australia, which has instant runoff voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Australi...). And we too have almost a two party system (Labor vs Liberals), the other parties get a seat here and there, but the big two don't show any signs of going away.
- vog 9y ago
  That's strange. Here in Germany it works out quite well. Sure, we do have two large parties as well (SPD and CDU), but there are several smaller parties which do have significant results, and hence significant influence. The classic example was the smaller party FDP some decades ago. Although SPD and CDU each had many more seats than FDP, both needed the FDP to have more than 50% of the seats. So whoever the FDP joined with, that party became part of the government, while the other became opposition. Some people even subjected that this was too much power/influence for such a small party. (Then, more smaller parties received a significant amount of votes, and things became even more complicated, but also more interesting!)
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  You also have compulsory voting, yes? Can you explicitly vote for nobody?
  - NeutronBoy 9y ago
    Yes. Our compulsory voting is really "compulsory voting". It's "compulsory turn up to a polling station and get your name marked off". You can drop an empty ballot in the box, draw penises on it, or even just turn and walk out of the polling place. Also, the OP underestimates the impact of the minor parties. While there are two major parties, one of them is a coalition between two parties (Liberals and the Nationals), and there's a significant block of smaller parties and independents that are big enough that when they vote together they can have a deciding vote on legislation.

arca_vorago 9y ago

I just have to say, this issue is one I have thought quite a bit about, and I'm not convinced the voting system itself is so bad. Don't get me wrong, I see the major downsides of a first past the post system, and I'm open to change, but in looking at the actual problem what I see is a different issue, namely, gerrymandering, at both federal and state level. My primary proposition as a systematic fix for gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts and reduce existing ones size. Of course the other primary factor in all this is a fourth estate failing to do its job. Also, duvergers law is not so concrete a truism as people like to think.

vonzeppelin 9y ago
What do you think about removing the cap on the House of Representatives at 435? I think Democrats should really support this completely Constitutional fix to the electoral college instead of advocating that it be removed.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Interestingly US initially had much lower person per representative ratio. If that ratio was maintained, we would have thousands of representatives in the House, and so would be more representative.
  - vonzeppelin 9y ago
    I wanted to look it up and this is what I found: >With the compromise constitutional ratio (1:30,000) in mind and given that the U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are currently about 313.9 million inhabitants of the United States, if the Constitution were being followed, there would be approximately 10,463 members of the House of Representatives. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21571-why-is-the-constitutional-representation-ratio-ignored https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/2157... I'd be okay with this. It would really change the make up of our government. Senators would seem far more powerful in comparison. The electoral college would be completely different as well. Using the population data on Wikipedia, at 1:30,000 California would have 1309 representatives and Wyoming would have 20. That would mean in the electoral college California would be worth 1311 points and Wyoming 22 vs 55 and 3 today.

Chathamization 9y ago

That's not really true. There are plenty of places where the voting system wouldn't hurt third parties (districts where one part or the other is practically non-existent, districts where the incumbent doesn't face a challenger, non-partisan races), but you largely don't see them making any progress there either. The VPP is the most successful third party (most state reps), and it's only active in one state. The complete inability for other third parties to make almost any progress underscores the problems with the parties themselves (independents have been more successful than third party candidates).

vkou 9y ago

The voting system is not the problem. The logistics of running a successful campaign are. The amount of advertising, canvassing, fundraising, and other effort that goes into American politics is insane - and unless you have the backing of a party, you are quite literally fighting an uphill battle. Recall the republican voter list leaks last year. Now, consider how much money it would take to gather that much information, at that level of fidelity. Now, consider how much of an advantage a sanctioned party candidate has, when you run against them.