3 ms·
> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Yes. That one. "Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least
by orthecreedence 5y ago
> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes.
Yes. That one.
"Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.
- astrange 5y agoYou wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions. - The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it). - FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.
- orthecreedence 5y agoI don't care about "extreme" positions in the context of liberal democracies. I can confidently say that there are great improvements we can make within them while also supporting abolishing them entirely. I like to be at least somewhat pragmatic. RCV/STV is absolutely an improvement on FPTP in almost every way. As far as strong vs weak parties, that seems to be an issue with the UK. FPTP and weak-parties are separate sets. You could have FPTP with closed party membership, or RCV/STV with weak parties.