If you want to reduce the spectacle, replace FPTP with a better system that eliminates the need for primaries, and get rid of Citizens United. Good luck.
If you want to reduce the spectacle, replace FPTP with a better system that eliminates the need for primaries, and get rid of Citizens United. Good luck.
I would also argue mandatory voting would be useful but I don't think the Americans are ready for that.
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
1. greater voter satisfaction, with virtually any ratio of strategic to honest voting. (i.e. "more resistant to strategy")
2. drastically simpler. (same ballot, precinct summable, lower kolmogorov complexity)
3. transparent: each result is a simple scalar sum of support, so third party and independent candidates don't have their support hidden from view.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.goo...
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth...
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis. https://approval.vote/
Yes, but for example if you had proportional representation, the power of gerrymandering would be greatly reduced.
Agree on the other two. I don't know what the answer is there.