Hacker News Reader

Comment by velodrome | Hacker News Reader

> The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a third party from winning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deb...

Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the CPD's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls to be included in presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of the lawsuits has been successful.

View on HN

No, it's definitely our electoral system. FPTP fundamentally shifts a system toward two major parties, and no amount of tinkering with debates or other reforms at the margins will make third parties competitive.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Why is it a competition for a singular explanation? Why can't both be necessary but not independently sufficient conditions? I sense a middle being excluded somewhere.

I'd still say FPTP is like 80% of the reason why third-parties can't rise to power in the U.S. and elsewhere, but yes, the two main parties have added further obstacles to make the rise of third-parties in the U.S. from almost impossible to virtually impossible (save for a country-wide "wake up" and a huge rally behind a "surprise" new party, etc)

Want to see it rid itself of first-past-the-post? Support and donate to these folks:

http://www.fairvote.org/

They are — as best as I can tell — the only group aiming to reform the electoral formulas used across the country.

The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road. Duverger's Law will hold it hostage otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

> The U.S. can't keep kicking its defective cans down the road.

Of course we can. Especially if they happen to primarily benefit the people already in power and in charge; especially if nobody runs on an election reform platform; especially if most of the electorate doesn't understand or can't/doesn't want to make the mental effort to understand what's wrong with FPTP; and especially if people keep getting distracted by other (admittedly very important) issues during campaigns.

Condorcet Voting and multi-member district representation would go much further toward a more egalitarian political system than the stuff FairVote focuses on.

None of these things, however, is as effective as sustained, direct action. Even with our broken one-party-two-factions system this is so.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/a-federal-court-chewed-up-...

^Just going to leave this here

Daily Caller is worse than a rag. I don't want to insult useful pieces of fabric.

Wow. What a joke of a ruling.

“Every four years, we suffer through the celebration of democracy (and national nightmare) that is a presidential election,” Brown wrote in her opinion. “And, in the end, one person is selected to occupy our nation’s highest office. But in every hard-fought presidential election there are losers. And, with quadrennial regularity, those losers turn to the courts.”

They turn to the courts because they're systematically excluded from the debate stage.

There's not enough debate time in the world to make Jill Stein poll above 15%.

Yeah, and if she got up on a debate stage, her party would be forced to ditch her and form a real left-wing party.

Given that they actually try running a candidate every four years rather than focusing locally, they're not a very serious party

Reply on news.ycombinator.com