> the underlying problem isn't the voting scheme, it's the lobbying and corporate money in politics There are certainly many problems, but voting schemes appea

> the underlying problem isn't the voting scheme, it's the lobbying and corporate money in politics There are certainly many problems, but voting schemes appear to be a very powerful lever. In particular: - Representative democracy incentivises parties rather than independents, since like-minded candidates can pool and target their campaign resources - Plurality/first-past-the-post voting incentivises a two-party duopoly, since voting for a third-party is a 'wasted vote' (they won't win outright, hence they'll get nothing) - A two-party system incentivises 'least-bad' voting (i.e. voting for someone we don't actually want, to stop the other candidate who we want even less) - A two-party system gives no choice on issues which benefit both parties (i.e. maintaining the status quo; e.g. lobbying, pork, military budgets, etc.); whilst polarising along irrelevant issues (e.g. 'culture wars') There's no agreed-upon 'ideal' voting method; but most alternatives are regarded as better than first-past-the-post. Any system which doesn't 'waste' votes for third-parties (e.g. preferences, scores, fall-backs, proportions, etc.) would allow voters to indicate what they'd like (rather than what they'd dislike least); that gives a chance to candidates who don't benefit from the status quo; and that brings important topics like lobbying back into the political arena.