The tracks to the correct path can be built by passing state level electoral reform.
Abolishing the First Past the Post electoral system would allow voters to support third-party candidates without fearing they’ll spoil the election. This reform would invigorate competition in elections, leading to better-quality candidates for all voters. Moreover, it’s likely to boost voter turnout and civic engagement.
At the state level, electoral reform is feasible; Alaska and Maine have already enacted such changes, demonstrating its viability.
Despite this, some Republicans are staunchly defending First Past the Post voting, as seen in Florida’s recent ban on Ranked Choice voting. Fortunately, there are numerous of other alternatives available, ensuring that electoral reform can still progress despite such obstacles.
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
It’s apparent that Democrats acknowledge the flaws of FPTP voting, evident in discussions on social media where many Democrats caution against voting third party. It’s perplexing to recognize these flaws yet fail to take action to address them. Merely lecturing on the shortcomings of FPTP voting without pursuing solutions is insufficient.
Here are some videos on the topic if you’d like to know more:
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
FPTP favors whichever party is currently in power in a two party system. Solid blue states don’t want to switch because it makes their hold on power less secure. Same reason as Republicans in red states.
I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don’t happen.
Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and “off-cycle” races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.
Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!
Electoral systems is a pretty nerdy topic (despite how important it is for who gets power), so it is not an issue the typical voter cares for. Therefore there is not enough political capital for such large reforms to be taken on by politicians.
The tracks to the correct path can be built by passing state level electoral reform.
Abolishing the First Past the Post electoral system would allow voters to support third-party candidates without fearing they’ll spoil the election. This reform would invigorate competition in elections, leading to better-quality candidates for all voters. Moreover, it’s likely to boost voter turnout and civic engagement.
At the state level, electoral reform is feasible; Alaska and Maine have already enacted such changes, demonstrating its viability.
Despite this, some Republicans are staunchly defending First Past the Post voting, as seen in Florida’s recent ban on Ranked Choice voting. Fortunately, there are numerous of other alternatives available, ensuring that electoral reform can still progress despite such obstacles.
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
It’s apparent that Democrats acknowledge the flaws of FPTP voting, evident in discussions on social media where many Democrats caution against voting third party. It’s perplexing to recognize these flaws yet fail to take action to address them. Merely lecturing on the shortcomings of FPTP voting without pursuing solutions is insufficient.
Here are some videos on the topic if you’d like to know more:
First Past The Post voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Other electoral systems to choose from:
Alternative vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Ranked Choice voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2fRPRkWvY
Range Voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
STAR voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-mOeUXAkV0
Mixed Member Proportional representation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
FPTP favors whichever party is currently in power in a two party system. Solid blue states don’t want to switch because it makes their hold on power less secure. Same reason as Republicans in red states.
You’re factually correct, and I support your long term goal, but it’s not something we can achieve by November.
I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don’t happen.
Congress might also have been able to get more done if there was a filibuster-proof majority for more than several months in the last several decades.
I do vote for the most progressive person available in the primaries tho.
The fact that we even need a filibuster proof majority to get anything done is yet another glaring example of how fucked we are.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and “off-cycle” races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.
Sorry, media is now handled at the national level so covering local and state races outside of ones that get clicks isn’t profitable
Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!
Electoral systems is a pretty nerdy topic (despite how important it is for who gets power), so it is not an issue the typical voter cares for. Therefore there is not enough political capital for such large reforms to be taken on by politicians.
Based on the about of Lemmy comments advocating for it, it seems like the typical voter is pretty passionate about ranked choice voting.
Based on a super niche subset of chronically online youth - this applies to everyone. 🤪