You're viewing a single thread.
If third parties wanted to actually do some good in the country, you'd see them running locally and encouraging either ranked-choice voting or STAR voting (Score, then automatic runoff).
The fact that you only ever hear of third parties every four years really illustrates what their true objectives are.
The fact that you only ever hear about ranked choice voting when you tell Democrat you're thinking of voting third part illustrates what their true objectives are.
(Also, I see third candidate parties in every midterm and local election I vote in at all levels of government. I have no idea what you're talking about).
(Also also, anyone reading this who lives in a swing state and hasn't voted yet, please, just votes for Harris. She sucks, but Trump is even more dangerous now that he has a staff full of enablers and an actual plan. We have to beat him.)
Not having RCV doesn't make anything worse.
Promoting third-parties without RCV in place does.
Well, third parties have always existed and will always exist, so it sounds like the Democrats need to get cracking on RCV. That is, unless they don't actually want RCV because it might disrupt the duopoly that empowers them, and they'd prefer that third-parties remain a boogeyman they can use to bully people I to voting for them (or a scapegoat for their losses).
Democrats have been behind, or at least caucused to support, most of the RCV initiatives that have been put forward.
Statewide, sure, but there's no broad discussion of abolishing FPTP polling like there is eliminating the Electoral College.
Don Beyer(D) proposed the Fair Representation Act in 2017 that included implementing RCV for electing representatives to the House.
It's much easier to sell a national popular vote, since people are used to popular votes already. RCV will be much easier to push federally when there are plenty of states that use it locally. Until then it's largely a non-starter.
Well, then, I look forward to Democrats actually doing that instead of just using third parties as a cudgel to keep their voters in line. However, I suspect that I'm about to stop hearing about RCV for four years.
Write your representatives and encourage your friends to do the same. It's a frequent topic of conversation, it only gets pushed louder in election years because people keep insisting on voting 3rd party in a FPTP election.
Shhh, they need someone to blame for their horrible run.
I see no Green party members on the local ballot to enact this. They are starting at the top, which doesn't help.
The greens internal voting is literally done by RCV, they have it both in practice and in platform all the way down the line. AFAIK, so does the DSA.
But whatever dude, keep doing what you're doing, it's working out great, clearly!
Third parties run at all levels of government and they would actually benefit from eliminating first past the post polling far more than the major parties.
The bitter fact is that a winning candidate has no incentive to reform the voting system that put them in power.
Why would a dominant party want to give any competitor an advantage?
Because they care about maintaining their voters far more than enticing non-voters. If you listen to legislators and their staff for example, the way they perceive it is that non-voters may as well not exist in their minds, but eroding voters get attention.
I hate to say it, but the only way I could see it happen is if both parties simultaneously see significant 3rd/4th party challengers acting as spoilers. In that situation, RCV would be the short term solution to remove the effect of spoiler votes. Basically the situation the UK is in right now with both the Lib Dems and Reform.
Why is it called score, then automatic runoff instead of star, then automatic runoff?
I'm not an expert in it, but according to the Wikipedia link, they score the possible candidates to get down to two, and then they do an automatic runoff.
But wouldnt starring amd scoring mean similar things?