We need like eight more parties. RCV won’t change hardly anything if we stick with single-winner elections. Gotta switch to some form of proportional representation, like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting.
You’re right that proportional representation (PR) would better reflect diverse political views, but RCV can still be a step toward breaking the two-party dominance. It lowers the barrier for third-party and independent candidates by reducing the “spoiler effect” and encouraging broader support. Ideally, combining RCV with multi-winner districts or systems like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting would create a more representative democracy.
Sorrrrrt of. It does reduce the spoiler effect, but ordinary Approval Voting does a better job. Note the chaos in competitive RCV elections. While these simulations are fairly simplistic, the concepts and lessons hold true when looking at real-world elections, more complicated simulations, and mathematical proofs.
Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces “lesser of two evils” voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.
Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of “wasting” their vote. While it doesn’t automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.
I’m short, by it’s nature, RCV creates alternatives.
My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.
We don’t need a third party. We need ranked choice voting.
We need like eight more parties. RCV won’t change hardly anything if we stick with single-winner elections. Gotta switch to some form of proportional representation, like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting.
You’re right that proportional representation (PR) would better reflect diverse political views, but RCV can still be a step toward breaking the two-party dominance. It lowers the barrier for third-party and independent candidates by reducing the “spoiler effect” and encouraging broader support. Ideally, combining RCV with multi-winner districts or systems like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting would create a more representative democracy.
Sorrrrrt of. It does reduce the spoiler effect, but ordinary Approval Voting does a better job. Note the chaos in competitive RCV elections. While these simulations are fairly simplistic, the concepts and lessons hold true when looking at real-world elections, more complicated simulations, and mathematical proofs.
How can you have ranked choice voting with only two parties?
Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces “lesser of two evils” voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.
So, in the federal election without a third party under ranked choice; my options would be 1. Harris, 2. Trump.
Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of “wasting” their vote. While it doesn’t automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.
I’m short, by it’s nature, RCV creates alternatives.
I.E., we need a third party.
My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.
Some more info on this.