"Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they're open to big changes" #ELB
electionlawblog.org
NPR: Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes. A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional … Continue reading “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” →

NPR:

Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House… Continue reading

The post “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” appeared first on Election Law Blog.

  • evenglow@lemmy.world
    111·
    3 days ago

    Ranked Choice Voting. If anyone is curious just know that it’s illegal in some places in USA. Similar with general work striking.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      general work striking is actually illegal across all of the US unfortunately. The Taft–Hartley Act actually forbids solidarity strikes as a whole, which is what a general strike is. It also forbids secondary strikes, which is someone boycotting or striking to show support for another strike or group.

      It’s really sad the amount of rights that the country has stripped away from it’s standard working class.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      44·
      3 days ago

      It’s my personal opinion that a lot of the support for Ranked Choice specifically is astroturfing from groups that don’t want real change. It’s nearly as bad as First Past the Post and is still subject to spoiler effects for example. Also too confusing for voters to trust.

      My preferences are for approval or score voting. With those there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.

      • raze2012@lemmy.world
        8·
        3 days ago

        It’s not astroturfig. That’s the way a lot of local elections (and 1-2 statewide elections) work. It’s a system that has precedent, so it gets the most support.

        But yes, there’s more than one way to shear a sheep. I’m open to any variety of choices not based on winner-take-all.

        there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.

        RCV barely increases the odds for someone you don’t want. The whole idea is that it rewards moderate views so that “everyone’s 2nd choice” is better than a radical first choice. The Spoiler effect will almost always be there, but Nothing is worse than FPTP for that effect. Especially with Score based voting that can (and given experience with internet ratings, will) degenerate to “0 or max score”. Score based voting works best with high information electorate, and the US… hell, pretty much all global politics aren’t full of people laser focused on every little law.

        I like Approval based voting, though. The issue lies more in excessive runoffs when we get the most popular candidates (or the worst case where none of the candidate are approved enough).