Hacker News Reader

Comment by roboprog2 | Hacker News Reader

when does the insanity stop?

When each of us can convince our friends and relatives to vote neither "(R)" nor "(D)".

This point can't be sung enough. It always seems so absurdly obvious to me, but everyone is sold by their favorite media outlet, their upbringing, or whatever motivates the two-party voting base.

Sometimes I think people just like to debate when they have neat little debating packages lined up for them.

I wish we could have runoff elections in the US. Then you could vote for the candidate you really want to win; if they lose, you can then vote for your safe fallback choice. This would really open the playing field beyond D & R (so it'll never happen).

There is no particular reason to believe that any alternate system would sustain more than two parties.

Obviously it's possible, as it happens all around the world, but systems of more than two parties are inherently unstable.

I agree the system would still balance around two systems, that's fine. Remember that political campaigns are about more than just winning. Look at the likes of Ron Paul, he gets an important message our and inspires people by running for office.

In our current system, a third candidate can only help the opponent most opposite of him win, but with runoff elections a third candidate would help the candidate closest to him win.

The difference with a runoff system is that multiple candidates from the same side of the political spectrum helps your cause instead of hurting it. Right now, if either party has multiple candidates running, it only punishes them.

Instability is better than entrenched interests or revolving doors. Even term limits would help.

Let me clarify the instability I'm referring to. I don't mean that a system of more than two parties causes chaotic policies in the country (actually, I'd bet against that). I mean that a system of more than two parties has a natural tendency to transform into a two-party system.

I agree. The best examples of third parties are the modern British Liberal party, and the insurgent Republican Party of 1860. But we can see that there were/are very strong regional factors in play, and that it never found a stable or quasi-stable situation where there were an obviously better menu of candidate choices.

Almost half the country's voting-age population already doesn't vote.

The ones who don't vote are hardly part of the solution.

The point is not abstaining from voting, but instead to vote for other parties. If enough people would do that, US would eventually get a healthy democracy.

(disclaimer: not US citizen. My country has government ministers from six different parties, including both conservative [religious and fiscal, two different parties], left, and the greens)

The political system will always revert to 2 major parties. That cannot change, it is the nature of the system.

I believe runoff elections would though. Currently if one party runs multiple candidates something like this happens:

Democrat 1 receives 33% of the vote. Democrat 2 receives 33% of the vote. Republican 1 receives 34% of the vote.

Democrats had two strong candidates with some differing views, and decided to let both candidates run so the people would have more of a choice. The result is that 66% prefer a Democrat but a Republican ends up in office.

(Spare me the "their both corrupt" speech, I use these parties only as an obvious example.)

This called the spoiler effect, and a runoff vote would prevent it. Right now more choices in the vote results in chaos and the candidate most people DON'T want ending up in office. With a runoff vote, there is no negative with more choice.

We saw this in action at the last Oakland Mayor's election. Now, if we can just set aside the qualities of Jean Quan (the mayor elected), it was interesting to see that the person who got the most first-place votes actually did not win. He was the "establishment" candidate, and both political parties were pretty pissed that the election had turned out unexpectedly.[1]

People may say that her election is a mark against IRV or RCV; but that's not the point! There will always be cases where someone incompetent gets elected. But the interesting thing in her case was that the groups who control the elections behind the scenes (PSUs, lobbyists, parties) were completely thrown off. Her election showed that it is possible for someone who is not beholden to the existing power structures to have a shot at election.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Quan#2010_Oakland_mayoral_...

Because trying to fix a broken system from within the confines of said system works SO FUCKING WELL.

Honestly.

My home state of New Hampshire gurantees the right to revolution in the constitution. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. So it's all "within the system" :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Hampshire#A...

When the current cycle is complete. It takes time, but it will happen, it always does. Just maybe not in our lifetimes anymore.

"not in our lifetime" , as Rumsfeld said.

When the people rise up and take back their government. Its not going to happen without mass bloodshed though, because the powers that be simply won't give up without a serious, hard-core fight.

When there's no sanity left I guess. Or maybe when some blood has been spilled (but it'll start over again soon).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com