2 ms·

Certainly a voting system that avoids spoiler candidates and "wasted"/tactical votes should lead to better parties and candidates becoming options and winning e

Certainly a voting system that avoids spoiler candidates and "wasted"/tactical votes should lead to better parties and candidates becoming options and winning elections. The original complaint above was that some unaccountable group "will pick a handful of people that you may choose from", which shouldn't be a problem if only party primaries were run properly, but I suppose that in a two-party state there isn't much selective pressure on either party to represent even the majority of its members, let alone the majority of voters or citizens.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
You’re right of course. My point was that the kinds of systems I described would devalue not just the two parties (as more parties would be viable) but parties as a power structure generally (as they’d have to adapt to stay relevant).
- giantg2 6y ago
  Ranked-choice will help to a degree (like in a general election where a sufficient number of people think a 3rd party candidate is better, etc). We would still need higher voter participation, especially in primaries. With such low voter turn out in primaries, that gives the most motivated (extreme) factions an advantage. Not to mention, we need to hold the primaries on the same day nationally. Right now the first few states might have 8 candidates to choose from, but the last few states only have 1-3 and would still suffer from bias since some of those candidates still wouldn't have a chance to win due to their poor performance in other states (unless the party executively overrides things at the caucus). I think the parties will remain powerful under ranked-chioce voting. People look to them as an authority more than an organization representing their own beliefs. It seems that many people also use it as an identity, which may stymie the benefits of ranked-choice. All this said, I think it's a step in the right direction, but wish that more could be done (voter participation and same day primaries for example).

eyelidlessness 6y ago

You’re right of course. My point was that the kinds of systems I described would devalue not just the two parties (as more parties would be viable) but parties as a power structure generally (as they’d have to adapt to stay relevant).

giantg2 6y ago
Ranked-choice will help to a degree (like in a general election where a sufficient number of people think a 3rd party candidate is better, etc). We would still need higher voter participation, especially in primaries. With such low voter turn out in primaries, that gives the most motivated (extreme) factions an advantage. Not to mention, we need to hold the primaries on the same day nationally. Right now the first few states might have 8 candidates to choose from, but the last few states only have 1-3 and would still suffer from bias since some of those candidates still wouldn't have a chance to win due to their poor performance in other states (unless the party executively overrides things at the caucus). I think the parties will remain powerful under ranked-chioce voting. People look to them as an authority more than an organization representing their own beliefs. It seems that many people also use it as an identity, which may stymie the benefits of ranked-choice. All this said, I think it's a step in the right direction, but wish that more could be done (voter participation and same day primaries for example).