The only way we can escape a two party system is by reforming our voting systems to something like ranked choice or approval voting.
I agree and we see some action on small scale on that front.
My position on this issue is that as long as current two party regime gets sufficient legitimacy from clown voting process nothing changes.
You aint electing 3p under curren rules but you can deny the regime your vote.
This theory does hinge on the idea that you accept the two party regime as futile circle jerk and you are willing to “sacrifice” your vote that “your team” would get.
I don’t see that as a viable path forward. If lack of voters decide the election in favor of the opposition (from your perspective), the party most aligned with you will move away from you to stay competitive. If sufficient votes for third party decide in favor of the opposition, you might get some decent movement towards the third party. If there are so many third party votes that your favored main party loses and the third party rises, the dying party may want to enact change, but they’re out of power, and the newly entrenched party won’t want to do it because it’s now helping them.
Note that none of these result in voting reform. We know because it’s happened. It wasn’t always the Democrats and the Republicans, but it has pretty much always been a two party system once we got through a few elections.
If you want voting reform, unfortunately, the only way to make that a serious possibility is by making it a serious campaign issue and by fighting to enact it locally and work our way up to the federal level. It’ll be hard to go straight for the top, but some areas are starting to experiment and prove it’s viable. Next step is to go a little bigger or expand into new areas.
I agree and we see some action on small scale on that front.
My position on this issue is that as long as current two party regime gets sufficient legitimacy from clown voting process nothing changes.
You aint electing 3p under curren rules but you can deny the regime your vote.
This theory does hinge on the idea that you accept the two party regime as futile circle jerk and you are willing to “sacrifice” your vote that “your team” would get.
I don’t see that as a viable path forward. If lack of voters decide the election in favor of the opposition (from your perspective), the party most aligned with you will move away from you to stay competitive. If sufficient votes for third party decide in favor of the opposition, you might get some decent movement towards the third party. If there are so many third party votes that your favored main party loses and the third party rises, the dying party may want to enact change, but they’re out of power, and the newly entrenched party won’t want to do it because it’s now helping them.
Note that none of these result in voting reform. We know because it’s happened. It wasn’t always the Democrats and the Republicans, but it has pretty much always been a two party system once we got through a few elections.
If you want voting reform, unfortunately, the only way to make that a serious possibility is by making it a serious campaign issue and by fighting to enact it locally and work our way up to the federal level. It’ll be hard to go straight for the top, but some areas are starting to experiment and prove it’s viable. Next step is to go a little bigger or expand into new areas.