NPR:
Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.
A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House… Continue reading
The post “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” appeared first on Election Law Blog.
We’re also open to executing politicians for treason when they hold more allegiance to money and Israel than the people they represent.
Like seriously NPR. Clean it up a bit and ask that fucking question. Report on how many people you interview agree with that sentiment.
Report on actual sentiment.
That critical 5% that can make a party completely lose. DemSocs can do it to Democrats in pretty much the same way as Libertarians can do it to Republicans.
Ranked choice voting open to all.
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
It has already been preemptively made illegal in several states.
Our de facto two party system isn’t statutory. It’s not written in the constitution that there can only be two parties. It’s just the natural consequence of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post election system. All a candidate has to do is win 51% of the votes to get 100% of the political power. It makes third party candidates essentially nonviable. That’s what would need to change if we want to ditch the two party system.
Plug for https://fairvote.org/ . We have a long way before ranked choice voting gets to federal elections, but many local elections are using it now and once people are familiar with it we can hopefully push for more far -reaching adoption.
It’s not in the constitution, but the power of voting lies in the states. So we’d need state to slowly change their voting systems for this to happen properly.
The electoral college for nationals is a whole different ballpark. Also not in the constitution, but I think that still lies with states?
Hey Democrats and Republicans, will you allow for the possible destruction of your parties? No? …oh
When someone on the internet ignores the spoiler effect: You miserable cretin! It’s been obvious since the 2000 election! You’re clearly a Russian LLM.
When someone running for office ignores the spoiler effect: This innocent flower just has so many bigger things to worry about. I’m sure they’d oppose FPTP if they only knew.
Remind me which party is the one that wants to send armed enforcers to voting places?
They’re open to big changes because corporations have captured our political parties and neither party answers to the population, you know, like a functional democracy. Citizens United and deregulation of corporations is where things went wrong.
Two parties? Who is the second party?
“Evil Light” I think.
The two-party system in the United States consists of “Republicans” and “Everyone else”.
This is probably the second worse time to have a movement like this.
The only time I could think that it would be worse is splitting the left wing vote before the 2028 elections.
This article isn’t about having more parties within the same electoral system (which indeed does not make sense), but changing the electoral system to make more parties viable.
The same was said in 2024. And 2020. And 2016. And every election before that.
No offense but if you can’t see why it’s a big problem now you’re part of it.
I’ll wait and see which way the Democrats decide to go. If it’s another “come together, let’s bring back bipartisanship” deal, then it’s a waste to cast a blue ballot.
Yea and if that doesn’t happen leftists will find another reason not to vote.
Sounds like they’re a critical voting bloc, you should inform the Democrats how to win.
Democrats should move further right and cater to people who actually vote and give up on leftists.
Worked for Clinton
Great. When exactly is a good time to fix this broken system?
Oh, the same time as party building - while nobody is engaged at all.
I’m all for the MAGA renegade party!
Either that, or massive voter disillusionment on the right that causes them to sit out from the election in protest.
Let them MFs split up. I’m for walking in lock-step with the Blue vote, and dragging the centrists leftward. Once things can be truly changed, then we can split along ideological lines.
The MAGA renegade party is a pipe dream they’ll all fall in line and vote red come primary and general.
The only thing this type of thing does is split the left wing.
This^
Never Trumpers today are just called “MAGA”
At this point, I’m hoping the left has wisened up and won’t fall for it anymore. History needs to stop repeating itself. Leftists get defeated because they can’t put aside their internal squabbles and form a united front.
I’m going to assume you think liberals are leftists?
No, but sometimes we have to form tenuous alliances to save our asses.
The DSA is never gaining traction in a fascist state where voting is actively manipulated and resistance is persecuted. Remember Franco crushed communist/leftist resistance and dominated Spain for 40 years. The republicans lost because of their internal squabbling. They couldn’t put their differences aside to further a show of strength.
We’re too little in number to make an impact right now. We need to keep getting DSA endorsed candidates in from the ground level. We need to primary candidates in such a way as to pull the party to the left. People need to see that socialist governance is rational. Mamdani is already paving the way.
What we cannot afford is a split. We should be building a united front of anyone left of center, not tearing it down. Getting into purity tests right now when we’re stuck in a burning house isn’t a winning strategy.
Well I’m here to tell you democrats are right of center at best. There is no party in the US, even the DSA, that would be considered left. Leftism begins at anti capitalism and they all support the status quo. Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.
Either we’re too big a voting bloc to ignore that we lose elections for dems because we don’t vote for them, or we’re such a small minority that dems don’t need us to win elections. But too many people, especially dems, like to blame us for when they lose but then refuse to cooperate and blame us that they didn’t win.
This whole “let’s not divide the left vote” is simply another uneducated talking point that does nothing but keep the pendulum swinging.
Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.
I think we’re trying to get to the same point here. By “pulling the party left,” it means defeating neoliberal candidates across the country and putting pressure on the left to grow a spine and acquiesce to anti-capitalists, aka entryism.
The material conditions are not right yet to go rogue and third-party people. We’re stuck in a two-party winner-take-all election system, unless we can get enough of our guys in to undo all of that. “We must walk the same streets as our oppressors,” to paraphrase.
I still have hope for the midterm elections. But electorialism may not be enough. Efforts need to be focused or organizing ground up for the general strike - the one that brings our civilization to a grinding halt and twists the arm of the capitalists so hard, that they’re forced into accommodation. Violent uprising is untenable in the USA. We’re technologically at a disadvantage with our lil’ rifles and handguns, without any combat training, to boot. No organization of violent resistance is happening under fascism without being brutally suppressed.
I’m for the great split. But the fascist hard-right party needs to be fractured and defeated first. They need to succumb to internal infighting before we do.
They’re not going to learn.
After 2024 I don’t think they ever will.
It’s a snowball’s chance in hell of actually happening, but this would be the best time for this to happen if it lead to proper new policy that changes how voted are counted.
Now I see what you mean about the idea of a big Left state splitting its electoral votes. Which would be bad in 2028. But the snowball’s chance is most/all states shifting to a non FPTP voting system and making a 3rd party viable.
Ranked Choice Voting. If anyone is curious just know that it’s illegal in some places in USA. Similar with general work striking.
It’s my personal opinion that a lot of the support for Ranked Choice specifically is astroturfing from groups that don’t want real change. It’s nearly as bad as First Past the Post and is still subject to spoiler effects for example. Also too confusing for voters to trust.
My preferences are for approval or score voting. With those there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.
It’s not astroturfig. That’s the way a lot of local elections (and 1-2 statewide elections) work. It’s a system that has precedent, so it gets the most support.
But yes, there’s more than one way to shear a sheep. I’m open to any variety of choices not based on winner-take-all.
there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.
RCV barely increases the odds for someone you don’t want. The whole idea is that it rewards moderate views so that “everyone’s 2nd choice” is better than a radical first choice. The Spoiler effect will almost always be there, but Nothing is worse than FPTP for that effect. Especially with Score based voting that can (and given experience with internet ratings, will) degenerate to “0 or max score”. Score based voting works best with high information electorate, and the US… hell, pretty much all global politics aren’t full of people laser focused on every little law.
I like Approval based voting, though. The issue lies more in excessive runoffs when we get the most popular candidates (or the worst case where none of the candidate are approved enough).
general work striking is actually illegal across all of the US unfortunately. The Taft–Hartley Act actually forbids solidarity strikes as a whole, which is what a general strike is. It also forbids secondary strikes, which is someone boycotting or striking to show support for another strike or group.
It’s really sad the amount of rights that the country has stripped away from it’s standard working class.
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
The 2 party system only works for business and power. We need a system that works for the people.
Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too….
Okay, but like, what tiny percentage of those people could understand the concept, much less have an opinion about it? heh
I prefer Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog
You, sir, are a mouthful.
Of course the voters are open to change… however we need a non First past the post system to even dip our toes in change, and in order to get that in place we need a majority from… that’s the real hinderance with fixing politics in general is the people who currently are in charge are the ones who have to change it. It’s like if in a sport we needed to pass a ban of a steroid that’s been rampant in a sport for 50 years… and all rule changes must go through the currently seated champions of the sport.
I wish that was true in WA state. Incumbents and the typical 2-party won in landslides. Anyone independent or voicing out against the nonsense that politics has turned into was mostly put in the single digit percent range.
Although our voter turnout was near 18-22% across all districts, so hard to know what people are thinking when they don’t fucking vote.
I don’t really understand how you came to this conclusion. Seattle is going to ranked choice voting in August 2027. As I understand it, Pierce, Thurston, San Juan and Benton counties plus Bellingham are also moving to RCV.
Does Washington not have a two-party system? Most states and the federal election are not explicitly two-party but are designed in such a way that there can never be a viable third party. It’s a system problem, not a candidate problem. That’s what the post is about.
But the people winning the elections by being second worst say that any changes to the voting system are too complicated for the electorate to understand.
It’s a system where the two highest in the primary to the general, regardless of party. Sounds good on paper but it’s still possible for the vote on one side to be split, similar to the spoiler effect, resulting in two of the weaker party winning when there are nearly dozens of candidates of the stronger parties sharing the votes.
And yeah, we need better elections (and not Ranked Choice either. Score or Approval are simple to explain and don’t have those effects where you can help someone you don’t want to win by voting for those you do)
Yes, these are the types of structural changes that need to be made before all the wishful thinking guiding people’s voting behaviors can amount to anything positive. Looking at the current landscape, ranked choice specifically, Democrats are receptive to the idea because they want leftists to at least put Democrats second while the GOP hates the idea so much they’re passing laws per-emptively banning ranked choice for more or less the same reason. There’s the path forward.
This can be done on local level but on national level you would need constitutional reform which is extremely unlikely.
Nonsense. The constitution grants states almost complete control over the handling of national elections. There’s nothing stopping them from doing ranked choice for president/Congress.
You’re technically right but the real issue is electoral college. For ranked choice to work on national level you would have to get rid of if. Which would require constitutional reform. Without it ranked choice and winner-take-all electoral college would result in a big mess. The most likely scenario would be for Republicans to organize and vote for one candidate while Democrats would split the vote between establishment Dem and some DSA candidate. To actually end 2-party system without giving the presidency to Republicans forever you would need ranked choice popular vote or 2-turn elections.
The electoral collage only applies to the presidency, though. The power of Congress matches or exceeds that of the president. It would make a huge difference in which senators/representatives are elected.
