this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
958 points (98.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6882 readers
259 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
There are several countries that have FPTP voting, but they're not as entrenched at everywhere into two parties the way the US is. The UK, for example, has several regions where one of the two major parties is mostly fighting against a regional party, and the other major party has little to no voting base there.
Not only that, but several southern states have used instant runoff voting since the end of Reconstruction (or not long after). If you look at the makeup of their legislatures over the past 100+ years, you'll see that they are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as everywhere else.
Point is, FPTP is not the only thing at play.
Sure, that's because there are other factors at play. But FPTP is one of the biggest factors, and in other countries with FPTP it is always the case where there are two dominant parties. Your own example, the UK, has that problem with the conservative & labour parties being the biggest. They always dominate the seats in parliament.
Sure, but a part of why FPTP is so bad is because it gets worse the bigger the election. A small regional election may only have two candidates to begin with, which means any system of voting is esentially equal.
National elections are almost guaranteed to have at least 3 candidates running for a seat, often 4 or 5 if its a seat like the presidency. And that's where you see third parties suffering most.
The fewer the seats there are, and the more national the election is, the worse FPTP gets.
That's because the two parties are so entrenched everywhere else. It's in their interest to dominate and push out 3rd parties in those elections as well.
Agreed, though it is clearly one of the biggest factors in 3rd parties failing. We need reprentational government, and this ain't it.
I don't agree Australia has "ranked choice" and we have two big parties dominant. It's not a FPTP, it's voters.
Paraphrasing Susan Sontag, 10% of voters are good, 10% evil and 80% can be swayed either way, of that 80% many of us are stupid (in the Cippola sense).
Ranked choice is basically FPTP with simulated rounds. It's not much better than FPTP. Switching from one bad voting system to a marginally better one isn't going to fix things.