24
Analysis | The problem for third parties? America is not a political free market.
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
24 points (81.6% liked)
politics
19090 readers
3957 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not going to totally disagree with you here, which is why I neither upvoted nor downvoted your comment. I think your chance for RCV or STAR increases if you take over a major party, because frankly, you're going to need to counter the old, dead weight that will fight tooth and nail to tear down your RCV framework. As much as I like Governor Polis in Colorado, he's still working with the people fighting to shut down RCV by making it so we have to jump through various hoops before RCV can be implemented State Wide.
We also have to be careful at the Federal level. RCV can work nicely for House and Senate, but we have a Constitutional Problem at POTUS that will take serious coordination at the State and Federal level to patch out. I'd hate for our current House to pick our POTUS because Harris got 269 votes, Stein got 25, and Trump got the rest. That's mandated by the constitution to go to the House, where Trump will be selected. We gotta fix that before we try to push RCV.
Maybe it's just because I've got a project manager's mind and see all the dependencies that I'm not calling immediately for RCV, though I am a fan of RCV, for sure, and will be voting for it in November.
Agree 100%. Get pro-election reform candidates in the major party primaries for local offices, and get them voted in. Then move up to state offices. It has to come from the states up, it will be rejected in the courts if it's a push down from the federal level.
They'll fight at the State level too. Look at Alaska trying to get RCV repealed.
For sure, in state courts. But since there already are some places with RCV, I'm cautiously optimistic that federal courts would be less likely to overturn any efforts that originated in and are limited to a single state. We've already seen federal courts gutting federal voting rights legislation in favor of states' "rights."
Guys
Every single RCV initiative that I am aware of has come from a ballot referendum
Just put it on the ballot. Y'all are adding too many extra steps that require cooperation from the political class.
I'm crying in Texan: https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_for_ballot_measures_in_Texas
We don't have direct ballot measures/initiatives here, only what the legislature puts on the ballot for us.
Same in NC.
Texas has an initiative. I kinda agree with you that it seems a little unlikely right now but at least it might be good to help build the network out for a future day when Ken Paxton is in prison on federal charges and there's some realistic pressure possible on the Texas legislators.
NC has one too
But we voters only get to vote on it if a 2/3 majority in both the chambers of the legislature vote to put it on the ballot for us to. So it comes back to getting pro election reform candidates on the major party primaries and into the general in the state races.
This is totally wrong. RCV is already in place in a few places, and on the ballot in multiple states in November.
You don't have to have anyone from the existing parties on board to enact RCV. You can gather signatures, put an initiative on the ballot, vote, and presto. I don't even really agree that "both sides" are trying to fight tooth and nail to prevent RCV (it is mostly one side in particular that's doing that), but in any case it's besides the point.
Check fairvote.org, see if it's on the ballot for you, if so vote. If not then try to sign up with a group working to make it happen in your state.
The idea that most voters are disheartened with "both sides" and that's what's wrong with politics right now is actually pretty much backwards from the statistics -- people are getting involved more and more in every recent election, which kind of makes sense since "one side" is so actively and obviously dangerous right now -- but again, that's even kind of besides the point. The point is, keeping FPTP and pushing for a third party is going to produce exactly the opposite of whatever the third party you're pushing is advocating, because what you're going to do is split the vote with whichever their ideological neighbor is. Reform of the voting system is the only approach that makes sense, and it's currently happening at actually a pretty surprising pace.