They booed former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate who currently leads in polling in some swing states. They rejected Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent candidate who is polling at 15% in some polls.
I’d prefer Approval Voting, RCV has really been over-sold and it practically the same to FPTP anyway. In RCV elections, the first round winner ultimately wins the race 96% of the time. That article tries to claim it somehow makes a difference in campaigns, but in a practical sense, it doesn’t. Campaigns rarely say “rank me second,” because of course not. Who would aim for second place? It also has unfortunate consequences with disenfranchising poor and minority communities, because they end up submitting invalid ballots at a significantly higher rate.
Anyway, so if you’re all like “stop attacking RCV it’s better than FPTP!” Well, I agree, but use that energy to run a referendum campaign and switch your local elections to Approval Voting instead. It’s used in both Fargo and St. Louis and we’re seeing the same positive effects that RCV has without the voter disenfranchisement.
I agree with using Approval Rating over RCV. However I don’t agree that RCV would yield the same results as FPTP in our heavily polarized Presidential election political climate. With most citizens putting a third-party candidate between their party and the opposing party, third-parties would be quickly identified as the ideal place for a moderate candidate. PACs would immediately capitalize on that opportunity to maintain a centrist in office. It could potentially yield worse results in the long term.
I’d love to see the National Popular Vote bill get passed. It’s gotten much closer since its inception. 209/270 electoral votes in total have signed. It would circumvent the Electoral College and equalizing the voting power of citizens over land, and be a massive step towards ease of implementation of new voting systems.
I agree that the National Popular Vote is a fantastic idea. I can’t wait to see it hit the threshold and immediately get hit with lawsuits from terrified entrenched powers.
I strongly disagree that RCV would have a significant effect on the presidential campaign, since it has already been shown to have little effect on any other campaign. It’s also ubiquitous in Australia, with a similar two-party forcing when implemented for their single-seat elections. The only reason they have third parties is because of their proportional elections.
Would you say that those elections were as polarized as our presidential elections are? Do you see my concern regarding all voters choosing their own party first, third-party second, and opposing party third? If first choice is split nearly 50/50, wouldn’t that put the third-party candidate at the top?
inconsequential fun fact: Tipper Gore is part of an SCP Foundation story arc, starting from here. It’s pretty well written, even if it does not have to do anything with the discussion here.
The most successful 3rd party candidate in modern political history was H. Ross Perot in 1992.
He won 0 states and 0 electoral college votes, but got 18.9% of the popular vote.
Nobody since has come close, not even Perot himself in his aborted 1996 run where he hit 8.4%.
Exactly. This is a well written piece on the history of the effects of third-party candidates on first-past-the-post elections.
Until we implement ranked-choice voting or a similar alternative, voting for a third-party candidate is equal to abstaining from the election.
Sincerely,
A guy who voted for Nader in 2000 who then could only protest Bush and Cheney’s blood for oil wars.
I’d prefer Approval Voting, RCV has really been over-sold and it practically the same to FPTP anyway. In RCV elections, the first round winner ultimately wins the race 96% of the time. That article tries to claim it somehow makes a difference in campaigns, but in a practical sense, it doesn’t. Campaigns rarely say “rank me second,” because of course not. Who would aim for second place? It also has unfortunate consequences with disenfranchising poor and minority communities, because they end up submitting invalid ballots at a significantly higher rate.
Anyway, so if you’re all like “stop attacking RCV it’s better than FPTP!” Well, I agree, but use that energy to run a referendum campaign and switch your local elections to Approval Voting instead. It’s used in both Fargo and St. Louis and we’re seeing the same positive effects that RCV has without the voter disenfranchisement.
I agree with using Approval Rating over RCV. However I don’t agree that RCV would yield the same results as FPTP in our heavily polarized Presidential election political climate. With most citizens putting a third-party candidate between their party and the opposing party, third-parties would be quickly identified as the ideal place for a moderate candidate. PACs would immediately capitalize on that opportunity to maintain a centrist in office. It could potentially yield worse results in the long term.
I’d love to see the National Popular Vote bill get passed. It’s gotten much closer since its inception. 209/270 electoral votes in total have signed. It would circumvent the Electoral College and equalizing the voting power of citizens over land, and be a massive step towards ease of implementation of new voting systems.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/home
I agree that the National Popular Vote is a fantastic idea. I can’t wait to see it hit the threshold and immediately get hit with lawsuits from terrified entrenched powers.
I strongly disagree that RCV would have a significant effect on the presidential campaign, since it has already been shown to have little effect on any other campaign. It’s also ubiquitous in Australia, with a similar two-party forcing when implemented for their single-seat elections. The only reason they have third parties is because of their proportional elections.
Would you say that those elections were as polarized as our presidential elections are? Do you see my concern regarding all voters choosing their own party first, third-party second, and opposing party third? If first choice is split nearly 50/50, wouldn’t that put the third-party candidate at the top?
The only time a protest vote makes sense is if your state is going to have an overage anyway.
I voted Nader in 2000 as well due to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore
and:
https://www.ign.com/articles/joe-lieberman-outspoken-video-game-critic-mortal-kombat-obituary
But I also knew, in my state, voting for Nader made zero difference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon
Aaaand it didn’t.
Multnomah Gore - 188,441 - 63.52%
Bush - 83,677 - 28.20%
Nader - 21,048 - 7.09%
Imagine the difference a Gore win would have made.
Gore did win, he just didn’t fight for it enough:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
inconsequential fun fact: Tipper Gore is part of an SCP Foundation story arc, starting from here. It’s pretty well written, even if it does not have to do anything with the discussion here.