great idea, here's an alternative voting system
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
333 points (98.3% liked)
Memes
49968 readers
1196 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
hell yeah. libs think shuffling burgeois corporate representatives around will make things any different.
Based
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
Anyone who saw the Lemmyvision competition, aussie.zone used a ranked choice voting method which was fun to see. (Even if their winning song won outright, it was interesting to see the host explain the insight ranking gave)
I liked this interactive explanation they linked: https://ncase.me/ballot
Also the Aussie election is next weekend.
Sure it takes a minute to determine results but it gives fairer results.
It does, and especially removes the spoiler effect, where voting for a US "third party" is seen as talking a vote away from the for favorable of the only two viable parties, leading to garbage coping mechanisms like "vote blue no matter who", saying you should vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you just because they're a lesser evil.
In those preferential systems, you can vote for the most trivial perfect candidate, even if you know they'll only get a few thousand votes, and it will still flow up to your preferred of the major parties. And I'm guessing that's a part of their steady rise of their middle crossbench they've been mentioning, meaning neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal/National Coalition have a full majority and must appeal to the smaller parties to pass any legislation they can't agree on (e.g. in their Senate, the Greens Party can demand progressive concessions because Labor+Greens+like-minded independents are enough to gain a majority, from what I understand). Their minor parties are growing and their big two are overall shrinking, it will be interesting to see what happens since the US election took some wind out of their conservative coalition's sails, similarly to Canada.
Ranked choice voting was murdered by the democrats and republicans in Colorado
Missouri just banned any system other than FPTP from being used last November by popular vote...
From what I am seeing in a few states is that some establishment Dems push back against it or tore it down, but the progressive Dem groups showed open support of it. I was tracking RCV in Nevada and Arizona specifically and there was not a recommendation to shoot it down, but the main Democratic Party in those states didn’t tell their voters to vote one way or the other from what I saw, only the progressives groups advocated for it though.
I would believe Colorado Dems shot it down though, as they did the same in a few other states. I think it’s still possible to sway public opinion and pressure certain Dems to be in support of Alternative Voting though. I don’t think there is a consensus to shoot it down 100%, but they shoot it down in instances where they might feel it threatens some of their hand picked Senate seats. If they think it would gain the party as a whole more seats on the state level or even federally I believe they could be convinced to back Alternative Voting.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting. I believe we should push for one of these other three alternatives to prevent uncommon instances where the least liked candidate still can win.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting. I believe we should push for one of these other three alternatives to prevent uncommon instances where the least liked candidate still can win.
A lemmitor shared This link to me that goes over the shortcomings of Ranked Choice voting. Still better then FPTP, but we can do more.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting.
Whatever you do, please don't split the alternative voting vote and let FPTP win with 40%.
I just wooshed the joke there lol.
RCV is still solid over FPTP ~>85% of the time, I’m just advocating for these other voting systems. Many people have heard of RCV, but maybe not one of these other systems. There isn’t really a universal favorite, but I feel having a dialogue about the alternatives is something we want to clarify before we commit ourselves to one without acknowledging any potential drawbacks.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Check to see if your state is already part of it. If not, use the links to send your state senator and state representative a letter requesting that they support it. The electoral college could be neutralized before 2028. Candidate A. 34% Candidate B. 33% Candidate C. 30% Other Candidates 3% Under the National Popular Vote Candidate A wins at least 270 electoral votes because they won the popular vote. No more fake two party stranglehold. No more electoral college presidents.
Yes! Thank you for sharing this, the NPVIC is so huge and we are so close to it actually being possible.
I feel we can make it happen, especially if we continue to get the word out and reach out to our senators and representatives, then we can have momentum for it actually happen as well.
Laughs in Australia
Y’all Australians really have one of the best systems with your compulsory voting and not having FPTP. I feel the only thing that would make your system better is if it was upgraded to use ranked robin or STAR voting instead, as the least liked candidate can still win in uncommon circumstances under RCV.
First thought this was about FTP, which I also hate.
what? Why shouldn't the winner win?
Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters. Let’s say there are three candidates A, B, and C and their vote totals are below.
A: 20 votes
B: 18 votes
C: 15 votes
In First Past The Post A wins.
Now, let’s give voters the option to select their top two choices so they can safely pick their favorite option first and while still having a safe choice secondary pick. In this case the election results are the following:
A: 1st pick 20 votes; 2nd pick 4 votes
B: 1st pick 14 votes; 2nd pick 12 votes
C: 1st pick 19 votes; 2nd pick 10 votes
B got the least votes in this different voting system, and B gets eliminated first. Then we move onto the second round of voting to compare the total votes of A vs C. A has 24 total votes and C has 29 total votes. In this example, C wins the election as they are the candidate most preferred by a majority of the voters. The majority winner still wins as they have the votes of a plurality of the electorate.
My example is a simplified explanation for alternative voting systems, the exact mechanism for each of them differs though. I specifically support Ranked Robin, STAR, or score as the specific alternative voting systems I would prefer over FPTP, as I believe they are all more fair and have the best outcomes for the majority of people expressing their preferences.
If we want elections to be more representative of what the majority of people want, then taking in more preferences of the voters only makes sense. They have less incentive to vote strategically for the same reasons, at least under the systems I mentioned. So for a real world example, most people can safely pick a third party candidate without worrying about the spoiler effect. This would be huge for properly showing just how much true support third parties have out there, because currently they have to compete for people that vote similarly between two or more parties.
You're answering the wrong question. That's a "how" answer, not a "why" answer. Surely there is a simple one-paragraph explanation of why FPTP is terrible
My response to the why is buried a bit tbf. The why is ‘who are we defining as the majority winner’? If we are defining it based on the current FPTP voting system, then yes the person who got the most votes in the one round of voting is the majority winner. If we define it in another system or based on who the total voting population would be happy to have as the winner, then another system would be better more often then not.
I agree there is a simple and more concise way of answering, but I saw it as a teaching moment to go a bit more in depth.
FPTP is terrible for encouraging a two party system over a long enough period of time, because it can incentivize partisan division to secure voter share, and since it often ignores the opinions of the majority of the entire electorate.
The damage of FPTP is further amplified by the House and Senate being capped on the amount of Representatives and Senators for each state. For many states, they just need to secure 51% of the voter base and it becomes winner takes all, especially so with gerrymandering. If there were Alternative Voting systems in all states and if states have had a minimum of five Representatives and five Senators per state scaled up based on population, then our country as a whole would be properly representative to how different populations throughout the country feels. It wouldn’t be just red or blue states anymore, multiple third parties would be able to flourish, and people would have congress-members in office that actually reflect their views.