[cmuguythrow]

I would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.

My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...

[oersted]

I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.

[timbit42]

FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) pushes toward a two party system. When you switch to RC (Ranked Choice aka. Ranked Ballot or Ranked Voting) or even PR, that push is relaxed and you are likely to start seeing more parties.

The problem with Ranked Choice with more than two parties is that the centrist parties tend to win more often because they are more likely to be the second choice of people whose first choice is a left or right leaning party. That can be a problem if they get 100% of the power when they win.

PR is better because how much power each party has depends on what percentage of the votes they get in the first round (there not being subsequent rounds), so it is unlikely they will get 100% of the power and everyone's vote counts because it increases the power of the party they voted for.

With Ranked Choice, you may end up getting your second or third choice instead and your first choice then has little to no power.

Most of the democracies in the world today use PR (at least 2/3rds) instead of FPTP (about 1/3rd). Ranked Choice is less common.

[nine_k]

Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.

Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.

[tedkimble]

I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.