We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.
More pragmatic would be to vote anti-incombant regardless of party until things change. Let the elected officials know that if they want a second term, they had better cooperate.
It is a curious quirk of psychology that a single vote for a two major parties is considered to matter, despite being guaranteed not to sway the outcome, while a vote for a third party is considered "wasted". And even curiouser, choosing not to vote at all is considered the more rational option.
Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.
> Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.
Here's hoping that people eventually figure out that better voting systems can be implemented state by state, including non-single-winner systems where appropriate (e.g., legislative elections), and single winner systems better than IRV (which is pretty much the preference voting system that does the most to preserve the problems of majority/runoff) for the places where single winner systems are still needed, as might be the case with executive elections (or not, if you reform more than just the election system.)
Honestly, I'm in favor of any modifications to winner-take-all. "None of the Above" would be a major win for the protest vote, with a huge meta-electoral effect even if it never wins. And while it would boost morale and turnout for presidential years, the real effect would be seen if we elected Congress that way as well.
Basically, you check yes or no for everyone, and the winner is the one with the most "yes" votes. Less expressive than IRV, but also simpler to understand and tabulate.
Belatedly: thanks for sharing. It does seem an easier sell, because the counting process is so easy to understand. It's not as favorable to third parties as IRV, because "[X] Minor [X] Major" obviously doesn't carry as much weight as "[1] Minor [2] Major", but at least it still kills the spoiler effect. While IRV seems more "pure" in an information theory sense, Approval is elegant in its simplicity.
That's mostly my views as well, yeah. There are a couple (narrow) weird cases with IRV, too... but IRV is unquestionably a tremendous improvement over FPTP.
"the real effect would be seen if we elected Congress that way as well."
Elaborate on that a bit - I know it's popular to say that Congress has a low approval rating, but no one votes for "congress" - they vote for their congresspeople, who typically have high approval ratings. There may well be other effects I'm not spotting, though...
Add a third option on the ballot for re-doing election
with different candidates:
"Dont like either of these two (expletive) - come back with better ones".
If this option comes tops in the election, both parties pay a percentage towards the cost of next round. Can't say their donors would be very happy if this shit goes on for months. Oh my god, how will we function without a government? Well, its not like the government we chose is doing/gonna do all that better.
Atleast it'll slowdown most of the shitty laws that get passed with alarming efficiency.
There is no "we", but I also disagree that it would "destabilize things". I think that after a brief initial upheaval, it would stabilize things to a great degree, and in a positive manner.
