4 ms·

This is dumb. We could just vote for parties instead of candidates, then have the party choose representatives, or have party members vote to choose representat

• Ekaros 4y ago
  Or you could have situation in between. Have people vote for candidate and share the votes between party and then rank those candidates in order of votes received. Would mean that winners would first be the most popular and the extra votes would still go towards the party. And the unpopular in terms of votes received candidates of party wouldn't get elected.
  • Msw242 4y ago
    Basically a delegate system? Sure
• bumper_crop 4y ago
  Live in California? The candidates for (Republican|Democratic) parties are wildly different in their ability and likelihood to do a good job. A 30 yearold candidate of the same party as a 50 yearold are going to have vastly different social networks, favors to lean on, money, appearance, etc. Picking the person is a much better choice to make than the party.
  • Msw242 4y ago
    And the people who are good at winning elections are different from the candidates who are good at governing. So you're screwed either way. At least with parties, the members of the party get to choose the boundaries of their concerns. E.g. the working families party in NY is a powerful presence in the state democratic party, and that is in a FPTP system. If you vote for parties based on platforms, and then parties coordinate with one another to build coalitions, then you might just end up optimizing for governance. Not perfect, but less flawed.
• mandmandam 4y ago
  If you're going to call a system dumb, maybe at least try to get its name right. Jeeze man.