>It's a conservative wet dream.
Man, c'mon - why you gotta lump all conservatives in with these people? You can be a conservative without being an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic.
Man, c'mon - why you gotta lump all conservatives in with these people? You can be a conservative without being an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic.
but you can't vote liberal without voting in bleeding-hearts. it's the same for conservatives. sooner or later you're going to have to vote for an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic.
when partisanship trumps all, almost none of it is so black and white. it becomes shades of grey.
Why when I decide climate change is super important do I also have to align with 15 other unrelated policies as well?
Parties are all-or-nothing and that's painful. Because I find that no party represents me in more than like 20% of my political positions.
I should be able to delegate better.
Instead we'd recommend one of the European-republic forks (E.g. Germany's federalism 2.0) or, if you're feeling adventurous, one of the smaller forks like 'Direct Democracy' or the nordic-style forks.
Please note that those newer implementations have significantly higher system requirements, usually calling for a well educated population that is willing to debate and compromise rationally.
Not just $5 here or $20 there. Donate to match your desire for a better future.
If we'd had a more nuanced system that allowed voting negative in addition to positive... pretty sure Johnson would have won.
We must prove that something which may be more complex than our current system is still just as fair (or more fair).
For example rank voting. You rank the candidates when you vote. When counting, you count all the votes for each candidate. You eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes. Everyone who had that candidate as a first choice reallocates their votes to their second choice. Repeat until there's a winner.
Suddenly it's okay to vote for that third party, because through rank voting you can ensure that your third party vote does not end up propping up the candidate you like the least.
Why isn't it used today?
Does such a group exist?
You can either rank the vote manually or vote for a party and they get to pick how the vote is ranked between all the candidates.
Also lots of countries have preferential voting systems. Lots of people in AU don't vote for the major parties.
The US system is just crazy.
Socially liberal fiscal conservatives might not like this administration's social changes, but conservative fiscal legislation will get much less scrutiny since the Democrats have almost no power. Vice versa for the rare fiscally liberal social conservatives.