We saw exactly what you're talking about three times in recent decades, at least regarding elections. Ross Perot's candidacy got Clinton elected twice, when the voters would have chosen the Republican in Perot's absence, and Ralph Nader got George W Bush elected, when the voters would have chosen the Democrat in his absence. Perot split the Republicans, and Nader split the Democrats, exactly as you hypothesize.
This is a great explanation of how fusion voting would enable third parties to play a meaningful, constructive role in our elections (rather than being spoilers). At the Center for Ballot Freedom, we're working hard to revive this system, which used to be common in across America until the major parties starting banning it because they didn't like the competition. Sign up for our newsletter to learn more.
Yes to proportional, but no to 'by district' because that is gerrymandering on steroids. Proportional 'by vote' is better. That is, if red gets 60% and blue gets 40% then they split the electoral votes accordingly, or at least as close as possible. That wouldn't "fix" the electoral college (only trashing it would do that) but it would make the system somewhat sane.
BTW Although far better than Choose One plurality voting, Ranked Choice Voting does not eliminate the spoiler effect. For that purpose we need rated methods like Approval, Score, STAR, and BTR-Score. For details see the Ranked Choice Voting page at VotersTakeCharge.us.
It's fine to have many choices early on, but only the top two can be in a debate. We never want a situation where someone wins a presidential election with only a plurality. I'm for jungle primaries with no party affiliation at the state level. Parties can do what they want on their own dime, but state Senatorial and Congressional primary elections should be non affiliated. We will get higher quality candidates that way. Alaska is a great example.
Mr Heise, you're talking about two different things, and omitting one. A debate is one thing -- we always have more than two competitors in primaries -- and an election is something else. The intriguing dynamic presented by an election winner who wins with a plurality is that, as we see in many other countries, they can't get anything done unless they appeal to other electeds to form coalitions.
I disagree. The final two standing are the ones who must debate. We can never have more than two once the primaries are over. Jill Stein cannot be on the stage with the other two. It's fragmenting.
We saw exactly what you're talking about three times in recent decades, at least regarding elections. Ross Perot's candidacy got Clinton elected twice, when the voters would have chosen the Republican in Perot's absence, and Ralph Nader got George W Bush elected, when the voters would have chosen the Democrat in his absence. Perot split the Republicans, and Nader split the Democrats, exactly as you hypothesize.
This is a great explanation of how fusion voting would enable third parties to play a meaningful, constructive role in our elections (rather than being spoilers). At the Center for Ballot Freedom, we're working hard to revive this system, which used to be common in across America until the major parties starting banning it because they didn't like the competition. Sign up for our newsletter to learn more.
Good read and such a varied, independent contest!
Thank you!
Yes to proportional, but no to 'by district' because that is gerrymandering on steroids. Proportional 'by vote' is better. That is, if red gets 60% and blue gets 40% then they split the electoral votes accordingly, or at least as close as possible. That wouldn't "fix" the electoral college (only trashing it would do that) but it would make the system somewhat sane.
BTW Although far better than Choose One plurality voting, Ranked Choice Voting does not eliminate the spoiler effect. For that purpose we need rated methods like Approval, Score, STAR, and BTR-Score. For details see the Ranked Choice Voting page at VotersTakeCharge.us.
It's fine to have many choices early on, but only the top two can be in a debate. We never want a situation where someone wins a presidential election with only a plurality. I'm for jungle primaries with no party affiliation at the state level. Parties can do what they want on their own dime, but state Senatorial and Congressional primary elections should be non affiliated. We will get higher quality candidates that way. Alaska is a great example.
Mr Heise, you're talking about two different things, and omitting one. A debate is one thing -- we always have more than two competitors in primaries -- and an election is something else. The intriguing dynamic presented by an election winner who wins with a plurality is that, as we see in many other countries, they can't get anything done unless they appeal to other electeds to form coalitions.
I disagree. The final two standing are the ones who must debate. We can never have more than two once the primaries are over. Jill Stein cannot be on the stage with the other two. It's fragmenting.
I do not fail to understand your point. And with our system of government, and how electeds retreat to sides, you're right, it is fragmenting.
But have you ever heard someone say "I'm going to hold my nose, and vote for...?" Maybe with a third choice, they wouldn't hold their noses.
Also, as I said above (which at the same time proves your point), we have had three candidates debating. The third was either Perot or Nader.