> I'm not sure what the last step is
Changing the vote from First Past the Post,
so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage, corrupted parties have us in:
“choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.
Changing the vote from First Past the Post,
so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage, corrupted parties have us in:
“choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.
Turns out when you have pluralities of garbage parties, the results are still pretty garbage.
First past the post voting is a major impediment to actual democracy, since it makes more than two powerful political parties a near impossibility..
All the other options available in the US, such as ranked choice etc, are really just stopgap measures.
True proportional parliamentary stye elections are the closest thing I'm aware of to offering true choice to voters, and representing a broad range of policy positions.
This involves eliminating any kind of "districts", and voting for parties instead of people. I think both of these aspects are hard for a lot of Americans to envision.
But I do feel that an elected official should have to be voted for across the entire geography for which they can make policy decisions. This is especially true given the power of committees in the US national legislature.
I also like the aspect of a clearly defined platform statement that is presented by a running party, and is largely absent from individual people as candidates.
But I don't there's any practical hope of big changes in the US system, given the total wrap on power by the existing two parties. Both of which are primarily focused on maintaining their power base.
As far as I know, New Zealand was the most recent largish country to convert from first past the post to a parliamentary system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealan...