• Lyrl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think no more than two parties would dominate, even in a ranked choice system. But they would evolve more representatively: party platforms are shaped by issue polling, with the ballot box being both the ultimate poll but also obscure on what exactly the detailed driving issues are.

      Ranked choice voting would give single-issue parties a real seat at the ballot box, and enable the two big parties to more accurately adjust their platforms to target voters who first-choiced a little party and second-choiced one of the big ones.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Right now they don’t have more than two parties not because they don’t want to but basically because they can’t.

        Once that would be possible watch everyone vote for who they actually want to vote for. Within no time you’d be seeing dozens of parties pop up

      • Lyrl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        It got through in Maine and Alaska. I am very disappointed on the loss in Nevada, but hopeful the current two-state foothold gets people more comfortable with the idea enough to support it, or at least not spend energy fighting it, in their state.