I’m not very well-versed on all this but it seems

Edit: I don’t think this is the best, its just all I’m generally familiar with

First Past The Post

Benefits the two parties in a two-party duopoly system like that of the US. Boom or bust, black or white. When the party in power pisses you off you vote their competitor even if holding your nose.

Seems like there must be a better way, maybe just not as good for those who prefer shooting fish in a barrel

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    11·
    6 months ago

    There are good arguments for ranked choice and proportional representation IMO. The latter tends to favour more “fringe” parties getting representation, which usually isn’t a bad thing.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      6 months ago

      The problem with proportional representation is that it assumes candidates are fungible.

      It’s bad enough that people vote for a party over an individual, and inherently limits the element of trusting the human being that should be the deciding factor in how people vote. Systematically assigning vote to a party rather than a person is much worse.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        4·
        6 months ago

        I see your point, but the reality is most people do vote for parties rather than people.

        I imagine you would see more smaller parties in a PR system anyway, rather than the current big neoliberal tent parties.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          6 months ago

          You can’t prevent that.

          But any system that actively enforces party lines should be automatically disqualified as a legitimate electoral system. It strengthens the power of the dumbest, least informed voters at the expense of rational voters willing to actually understand who candidates are.