4 ms·

There are many other voting systems that are better than the current first past the post (FPTP) voting system that the US currently uses. None are perfect, but

by ixwt 7y ago

There are many other voting systems that are better than the current first past the post (FPTP) voting system that the US currently uses. None are perfect, but pretty much every single one is better than FPTP. A ranked-choice voting system would encourage the existence of more parties. Even a run off voting would help with the existence of more parties, while still preserving the simplicity of FPTP (though, getting people to vote is hard enough, forcing them to go vote a second time would probably be even harder).

Faark 7y ago
I agree with FPTP being bad. But keep in mind the big advantage of the system is keeping two parties close to even, leading to more frequent regime changes. This makes it harder to rig the system in your favor, thus providing long term stability. I'm not sure if term limits alone would would be good enough at that.
- ixwt 7y ago
  I'm somewhat skeptical of the thought that FPTP makes it harder to rig the system. I'm probably a bit information diet biased here, but it seems (as an example) that Republicans have had more court rulings against them due to unfair gerrymandering of districts. It seems who holds the power gets to determine the districts, which would help preserve power. If there wasn't a two way swing, it would arguably be harder to gerrymander in one parties favor, as it _should_ be more difficult to hold 51%+ power if more than 2 parties are available.
  - foobarian 7y ago
    How cool would it be if we passed gerrymandering restrictions based on the fractal dimension of the district maps :-)
- sjy 7y ago
  Wouldn't you expect even more frequent regime changes in a system where the vote was split between three or more parties? This is a common criticism of minority government.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    No, only if the electoral system is winner take all. Multiparty proportional systems can be very stable,for example, Germany 2000-present

by ixwt 7y ago

Faark 7y ago

I agree with FPTP being bad. But keep in mind the big advantage of the system is keeping two parties close to even, leading to more frequent regime changes. This makes it harder to rig the system in your favor, thus providing long term stability. I'm not sure if term limits alone would would be good enough at that.

ixwt 7y ago
I'm somewhat skeptical of the thought that FPTP makes it harder to rig the system. I'm probably a bit information diet biased here, but it seems (as an example) that Republicans have had more court rulings against them due to unfair gerrymandering of districts. It seems who holds the power gets to determine the districts, which would help preserve power. If there wasn't a two way swing, it would arguably be harder to gerrymander in one parties favor, as it _should_ be more difficult to hold 51%+ power if more than 2 parties are available.
- foobarian 7y ago
  How cool would it be if we passed gerrymandering restrictions based on the fractal dimension of the district maps :-)
sjy 7y ago
Wouldn't you expect even more frequent regime changes in a system where the vote was split between three or more parties? This is a common criticism of minority government.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  No, only if the electoral system is winner take all. Multiparty proportional systems can be very stable,for example, Germany 2000-present