4 ms·

You do realize that by having more parties, you split the vote further and run an increased risk of no one having a majority. Would you rather see politicians

by rplst8 4y ago

You do realize that by having more parties, you split the vote further and run an increased risk of no one having a majority. Would you rather see politicians be elected with only a plurality of the votes?

throw0101c 4y ago
> You do realize that by having more parties, you split the vote further and run an increased risk of no one having a majority. Some would see this (having to build coalitions) as a feature. (As a Canadian I can see pros and cons given our system.)
rqtwteye 4y ago
When no one has a majority they have build coalitions and learn how to compromise. That’s a good thing.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is exactly what happens in existing FPP systems. See Trump for example: 48% vote and a 1 in 2 turnout: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_president... or Boris Johnsons landslide with 42% of a 67% turnout: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_...
DoughnutHole 4y ago
This is only a problem if you retain a first-past-the-post voting system. My country uses a single transferable vote system - pretty much no representatives are elected with a majority of their constituency's vote - instead each constituency elects multiple representatives (3-5), and you vote with a ranked choice of all of the people running in your constituency. No one gets a majority of first preferences because there's no concept of a "wasted" vote if you vote for someone on the fringe - your vote will eventually end up transferred to your favourite candidate that can feasibly be elected. The result is a legislature that is extremely representative of the population at large with a wide gamut of parties. Our politics is obviously still as dysfunctional as anywhere, but I don't think any of it can be chalked up to the electoral system.

by rplst8 4y ago

throw0101c 4y ago

> You do realize that by having more parties, you split the vote further and run an increased risk of no one having a majority. Some would see this (having to build coalitions) as a feature. (As a Canadian I can see pros and cons given our system.)

rqtwteye 4y ago

When no one has a majority they have build coalitions and learn how to compromise. That’s a good thing.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This is exactly what happens in existing FPP systems. See Trump for example: 48% vote and a 1 in 2 turnout: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_president... or Boris Johnsons landslide with 42% of a 67% turnout: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_...

DoughnutHole 4y ago

This is only a problem if you retain a first-past-the-post voting system. My country uses a single transferable vote system - pretty much no representatives are elected with a majority of their constituency's vote - instead each constituency elects multiple representatives (3-5), and you vote with a ranked choice of all of the people running in your constituency. No one gets a majority of first preferences because there's no concept of a "wasted" vote if you vote for someone on the fringe - your vote will eventually end up transferred to your favourite candidate that can feasibly be elected. The result is a legislature that is extremely representative of the population at large with a wide gamut of parties. Our politics is obviously still as dysfunctional as anywhere, but I don't think any of it can be chalked up to the electoral system.