4 ms·

> Many who voted for Lamont in the primary may have switched to Lieberman in the general election to ensure his victory over Republican Alan Schlesinger. That

by bnralt 4y ago

> Many who voted for Lamont in the primary may have switched to Lieberman in the general election to ensure his victory over Republican Alan Schlesinger. That's a really weird way to frame things, and suggests to me the author didn't look into the election before writing it. The general election was very much one between Lieberman and Lamont, with Schlesinger getting less than 10% of the vote. > Voters have no incentive to consider alternatives, because a vote for a third alternative would be “wasted:” In fact, it might help elect the major party candidate whom the voter most strongly opposes. There are many races where one party doesn't bother to run a candidate where this isn't an issue, yet third-parties don't have much success there either. The D.C. legislature (called the city council, but functionally acts like a state legislature) has two seats that Democrats aren't legally allowed to have, and that Republicans at the moment aren't able to win because the city largely opposes them. Yet third-party candidates haven't held the seat in decades (they've been held by independent candidates). The author brings up examples from states where ranked-choice choice voting has been implemented, but they're all examples of a candidate from one of the two major parties winning. I doubt ranked-choice voting is going to bring about the kind of transformational change its advocates claim. The evidence so far from the places that have implemented it don't show a huge amount of difference.

RugnirViking 4y ago
why are there only two parties in the US, wheras there are many places that have 5 or 6 at least parties in countries as small as denmark or as large as germany?
- inetknght 4y ago
  As @jasode said in another comment [0]: > In terms of cause & effect, the USA's 2-party system is the effect caused by the voting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357
- bnralt 4y ago
  As I mentioned in my post, why aren't third parties successful in places where first past the post isn't an issue (seats where one party doesn't contest it, seats where one party isn't legally allowed to hold them, places that implemented ranked choice voting)? When first past the post is removed we're still not seeing other parties succeed. As to why we only see two parties, I think it's for a couple of reasons. One, the parties are pretty open and just about anyone can run in them, so there's little use for a third party. Two, the two parties have become culturally entrenched - many people see themselves as Democrats or Republicans, not just people who happen to vote for Democrats or Republicans. And three, prominent national third-parties have been run so poorly they've made people more likely to anyone (including independents) over third parties. Independent candidates have actually had much more success (even in places with first past the post) than third-party candidates.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > prominent national third-parties have been run so poorly they've made people more likely to anyone (including independents) over third parties Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me that they are poorly run, especially relative to the two major parties. (I do agree with your overall point though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503188)
    - bnralt 4y ago
      A good example is the Reform Party, the most prominent party in the 90's and more successful than the Green Party or Libertarians in many ways (the Reform Party actually won a Governor's seat, and got more presidential votes than the other two ever did). They had a pretty public melting down in the late 90's and now are a non-entity. The Greens and Libertarians have been a mess whenever I've worked with them at the local level. One problem that I've seen, both at a local and national level, is that they keep trying to run as many candidates in as many races as possible, and almost all of these end up being vanity candidates with no interest in winning. We had Green Party candidates here in major races who didn't even bother putting up a website. This just entrenches the idea in people's minds that these parties aren't serious, and are only worthwhile as protest votes. You want to know the most successful third party at the moment in the U.S.? The Vermont Progressive Party. They only operate in Vermont, yet hold more state level offices in Vermont than Greens and Libertarians _combined_ do in the entirety of the United States. Also more independent state level elected officials. We have two independent senators at the moment. Other people from outside the two parties have had much more success than almost all of the third parties. Again, the Vermont Progressive Party is an exception, but it's only active in Vermont. The Working Families Party in New York would count as another exception, though that's a bit more complex given New York's fusion voting.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- joveian 4y ago
  Proportional representation. A major advantage of STV is that there is an easy to understand and manually count proportional version of it (called single transferable vote and used in Ireland). IMO it is best to go directly to multimember STV but single member RCV is at least a non-trivial improvement. I think the Irish system would be easier to switch to in the US vs other proportional systems. There won't be a huge change immediately, particularly when most of the country is still using a different system. It doesn't solve everything but it helps.

by bnralt 4y ago

RugnirViking 4y ago

why are there only two parties in the US, wheras there are many places that have 5 or 6 at least parties in countries as small as denmark or as large as germany?

inetknght 4y ago
As @jasode said in another comment [0]: > In terms of cause & effect, the USA's 2-party system is the effect caused by the voting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357
bnralt 4y ago
As I mentioned in my post, why aren't third parties successful in places where first past the post isn't an issue (seats where one party doesn't contest it, seats where one party isn't legally allowed to hold them, places that implemented ranked choice voting)? When first past the post is removed we're still not seeing other parties succeed. As to why we only see two parties, I think it's for a couple of reasons. One, the parties are pretty open and just about anyone can run in them, so there's little use for a third party. Two, the two parties have become culturally entrenched - many people see themselves as Democrats or Republicans, not just people who happen to vote for Democrats or Republicans. And three, prominent national third-parties have been run so poorly they've made people more likely to anyone (including independents) over third parties. Independent candidates have actually had much more success (even in places with first past the post) than third-party candidates.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > prominent national third-parties have been run so poorly they've made people more likely to anyone (including independents) over third parties Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me that they are poorly run, especially relative to the two major parties. (I do agree with your overall point though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503188)
  - bnralt 4y ago
    A good example is the Reform Party, the most prominent party in the 90's and more successful than the Green Party or Libertarians in many ways (the Reform Party actually won a Governor's seat, and got more presidential votes than the other two ever did). They had a pretty public melting down in the late 90's and now are a non-entity. The Greens and Libertarians have been a mess whenever I've worked with them at the local level. One problem that I've seen, both at a local and national level, is that they keep trying to run as many candidates in as many races as possible, and almost all of these end up being vanity candidates with no interest in winning. We had Green Party candidates here in major races who didn't even bother putting up a website. This just entrenches the idea in people's minds that these parties aren't serious, and are only worthwhile as protest votes. You want to know the most successful third party at the moment in the U.S.? The Vermont Progressive Party. They only operate in Vermont, yet hold more state level offices in Vermont than Greens and Libertarians _combined_ do in the entirety of the United States. Also more independent state level elected officials. We have two independent senators at the moment. Other people from outside the two parties have had much more success than almost all of the third parties. Again, the Vermont Progressive Party is an exception, but it's only active in Vermont. The Working Families Party in New York would count as another exception, though that's a bit more complex given New York's fusion voting.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
joveian 4y ago
Proportional representation. A major advantage of STV is that there is an easy to understand and manually count proportional version of it (called single transferable vote and used in Ireland). IMO it is best to go directly to multimember STV but single member RCV is at least a non-trivial improvement. I think the Irish system would be easier to switch to in the US vs other proportional systems. There won't be a huge change immediately, particularly when most of the country is still using a different system. It doesn't solve everything but it helps.