4 ms·

The purpose of the change is to move away from a two-party system, where people are forced to vote red or blue, because green and grey are too small to have a r

The purpose of the change is to move away from a two-party system, where people are forced to vote red or blue, because green and grey are too small to have a real chance. Only making the change within parties wouldn't fix that at all.

chrisco255 8y ago
I understand that, but from a pragmatic point of view, you have little chance of achieving that. As long as Congressional districts are winner-take-all. And Senate seats are winner-take-all (there's only one seat up for each state at a time, usually). Nothing will change at the Federal level. And as for the Presidency, each state gets to decide how they allocate their electoral votes. Game theory currently suggests it's in a state's best interests to allocate all of their votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. And in the meantime, you're going to hit roadblock upon roadblock in trying to get a major disruptive system installed at the Federal election level. You would have a much easier time getting the system to change from within the Democrat and Republican parties for the primary system, since those rules are set by the parties themselves and not by the states. So long as the parties are open and accessible to anyone, I don't see a big problem. The parties themselves are composed of many smaller factions (greens, libertarians, evangelicals, etc, etc).
- the_watcher 8y ago
  There are already Congressional districts that use runoff elections (MS-special, for one that's being voted on today). States can choose the way they elect their representatives so long as it isn't contra the Constitution, which only requires direct election at the moment.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > You would have a much easier time getting the system to change from within the Democrat and Republican parties for the primary system, since those rules are set by the parties themselves and not by the states. In any state with citizen initiatives, it involves less wrangling with esconced elites to change statewide rules than party internal rules. That's where the real big changes are likely to happen.

chrisco255 8y ago

I understand that, but from a pragmatic point of view, you have little chance of achieving that. As long as Congressional districts are winner-take-all. And Senate seats are winner-take-all (there's only one seat up for each state at a time, usually). Nothing will change at the Federal level. And as for the Presidency, each state gets to decide how they allocate their electoral votes. Game theory currently suggests it's in a state's best interests to allocate all of their votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. And in the meantime, you're going to hit roadblock upon roadblock in trying to get a major disruptive system installed at the Federal election level. You would have a much easier time getting the system to change from within the Democrat and Republican parties for the primary system, since those rules are set by the parties themselves and not by the states. So long as the parties are open and accessible to anyone, I don't see a big problem. The parties themselves are composed of many smaller factions (greens, libertarians, evangelicals, etc, etc).

the_watcher 8y ago
There are already Congressional districts that use runoff elections (MS-special, for one that's being voted on today). States can choose the way they elect their representatives so long as it isn't contra the Constitution, which only requires direct election at the moment.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> You would have a much easier time getting the system to change from within the Democrat and Republican parties for the primary system, since those rules are set by the parties themselves and not by the states. In any state with citizen initiatives, it involves less wrangling with esconced elites to change statewide rules than party internal rules. That's where the real big changes are likely to happen.