707
Meeting the 3rd party candidates
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
707 points (91.1% liked)
Political Memes
5354 readers
3233 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.
You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.
Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don't like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:
The ballot example is bad, but I definitely think this is an improvement on the current system.
As with every system; someone will eventually find flaws and then it'll need updated. Which is how democratic countries should work.
If someone tells you the system is good enough already, you can guarantee they benefit from some inequality.
We've already found the flaws in RCV and STV.
Ranked Choice has some serious flaws.
The first and strangest is the monotonicity criterion.
Ranked Choice is the only system that fails it. What it means is that you can actually improve a candidate's chance of winning by lowering their ranking on your ballot.
Oh yeah, it also still has the spoiler effect, where a third party can fuck over an election. It's just slightly harder to achieve. But the mechanism that forces two parties remains.
It's also hard to count and thus more susceptible to malicious actors.
Some of us have been screaming about these flaws for years.
There are better options. Approval is one. It's dead simple. The ballot instructions are as such. Do you approve of the candidate, mark yes or no next to any, all or none of the candidates listed.
Candidates with the highest approval win.
Approval is immune to the Spoiler effect. It would be a direct improvement vs anything being done in the world today.
And it's still not the best system out there.
That's likely to be STAR.
Immune to the Spoiler effect and also protected vs clone candidates and such, while allowing the voter to show clear preferences.
It also is constructed in such a way that it gets around some of those "one person one vote" laws put in place by the anti-voting reform people.
Arizona Prop 140 is trying to implement this exact system. I hope it passes.
And Colorado proposition 131