• UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    With electoral reform, we could have more then two artificially limited options. We could have competition in our elections. We could be free…

    • Shapillon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      But currently you aren’t and the options are damage control or burning the house down…

      • A French person that was in a similar position a few monthes ago.
      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Great point. If Americans don’t like their options, they should spare a thought for French progressives holding their nose and voting for Macron, over and over and over.

        • Shapillon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Eeeeeeh I’m not going to compare Macron and Harris. She’s not been a stepping stool for the R again and again and again.

          I was referring to our last legislative election (think Congress if you need an American point of reference). It happened last summer and Left wing voters had to make a coalition up to the socialist party and the greens which are our centrist parties.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            She’s not been a stepping stool for the R again and again and again.

            She’s campaigning with Mike Bloomberg, Jeff Flake, and Liz Cheney. I’ve seen nothing to suggest she’s learned from Clinton or Obama in this regard.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I think the first, most realistic progress we can make is to get a few more states to sign the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a agreement between state legislature to assign their electors based on the national popular vote, and it automatically goes into effect once enough states have signed on to guarantee 270 electoral votes.

      It bypasses the need to pass a constitutional ammendment that is functionally impossible to get through.

      And it’s within grasp. Enough states have already signed on for 209 of the 270 threshold (Maine just signed it into law in April), with several states pending for another 50 (e.g. Nevada is waiting on governor’ssignature).

      We’re shockingly close to killing the electoral college, and nobody seems to know about it.

    • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Don’t romanticise it. You’ll still have a small number of options in total, and you’ll be unlikely to shake the dominance of the 2 major parties. You’ll still worry about “wasting” your vote on a party who will get low representation. You’ll still be disappointed when the centre left don’t do anything meaningful. You’ll still be powerless when the right hold government. You’ll still have trouble finding someone you want to vote for.

      Yes it’s better, but it’s not Paradise.

      Source: Lived in New Zealand under MMP for five electoral cycles.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        As a NZr, I agree. But it does make smaller third parties viable. In NZ, Greens, ACT and NZ First are all third parties where a vote is not wasted if their block wins