Because of FPTP and the Winner Take All Electoral College, there is a lot of political pressure to only have 2 parties. In a better system (proportional, ranked choice, etc) it wouldn’t break with more than two parties. In fact just reforming the electoral college to be proportional would likely allow 3 parties to exist.
If you look at history the last time there was a viable 3rd party it possibly initiated the civil war by allowing an anti slavery viewpoint to exist (which is good, but if we’d had a better voting system it would have happened earlier and reduced a lot of suffering)
*electoral system
Because of FPTP and the Winner Take All Electoral College, there is a lot of political pressure to only have 2 parties. In a better system (proportional, ranked choice, etc) it wouldn’t break with more than two parties. In fact just reforming the electoral college to be proportional would likely allow 3 parties to exist.
If you look at history the last time there was a viable 3rd party it possibly initiated the civil war by allowing an anti slavery viewpoint to exist (which is good, but if we’d had a better voting system it would have happened earlier and reduced a lot of suffering)
And if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped.
We have FPTP, and we’ll have it until I’m cold and dead in the ground.
even republican-ass alaska passed RCV.
alaska also has some kind of UBI because of their oil stuff, I’m not sure they slot as easily into political partisanship as most other states
Burlington VT also switched off FPTP… and then we fucking back slid because “it’s too confusing!”
I think it’s highly unlikely we get off FPTP at a national level.
And it failed in blue as fuck Massachusetts
Yay, Alaska and Maine did it. Very good. Wake me when it’s a state that has more people than moose.