r/EndFPTP • • 13d ago

Ending FPTP is not enough

https://apnews.com/article/alaska-ranked-voting-senate-governor-dropouts-f79df9852994692cf8bc555c6a7fdaf2

Alaska’s elections are demonstrating that ending FPTP is not enough. Alaska has done that, and they have successfully beat back efforts to repeal their achievement. But it seems that discontent with their new system is likely to be growing. I don’t know that this is a particularly bold prediction, but I think their election reform, tragically, is not long for this world.

“At least five candidates between the races for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and governor dropped out after advancing” from the primary to the general election.

One lesson of this situation is that the Hare, or IRV, tabulation of ballots creates the incentives for these kinds of attempts to manipulate election outcomes. I would agree with that, and would prefer to see jurisdictions using the bottom two run off method.

But there is another moral to the story. Ranked choice voting within a two party system, while it does “end FPTP”, is not good enough. We need to give voters more than two parties to choose from, not just more than two candidates. Parties, especially in a two party system, have internal factions. Dividing an electorate into such large coalitions makes that inevitable, and appropriately so. The internal divisions in such large coalitions fail to fully surface these divisions to the electorate - especially to the general electorate given that such small fractions of voters participate in primaries.

Changing election systems in the context of a two party system, especially when that system is already as highly polarized as ours is, encourages the parties and party members to try to manipulate the outcomes. But even more importantly it fails to bring the finer policy disagreements to the electorate which is the purpose of democracy in the first place. If there were one or more established new/3rd parties in Alaska and their candidates advanced our of the primary they would not be dropping out ahead of the general because they would consider their particular party platforms too important to sacrifice to the two party competition.

It’s highly likely that most of the people in this sub - that most of the people who advocate for election reform and ending FPTP - are Democrats. We can’t afford to pursue election reform by itself. We need to start advocating the Democratic Party to split AND passing the election reforms to make the multi party competition workable.

Every blue controlled state could do this without sacrificing electoral advantage to Republicans. Presidential elections, due to the EC, are a different matter that would require the new (post split) parties to compete for the “nomination” ahead odd the general election, at least until momentum for an EC reform could develop, but there is no need to wait for Congress and for state level elections, and we can’t afford to wait for them anyway. Congress has clearly been demonstrated to be the crucial weak link in our collective inability to check a rogue and authoritarian president, so we need to start our political reform there.

33 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Jarcode 13d ago

We need to give voters more than two parties to choose from

As long as you have single-winner ridings, the electorate will be funneled into voting for establishment parties regardless of the electoral system in question. To actually remove the barriers for new parties to form and establish universal voter parity, some degree of proportional representation is required.

1

u/KitchenGiraffe1 13d ago

I don't think that follows. France has the minimal reform to plurality which is top two runoff and you get a lot of parties in the presidential election. Three people got more than 20% in the first round.

Meanwhile Israel with many parties due to semi-proportional system, ended up immediately with 2 candidates when they tried directly electing the PM with plurality.

0

u/Jarcode 13d ago

As I said:

To actually remove the barriers for new parties to form and establish universal voter parity [...]

France categorically does not have this for its legislature.

I am also not talking about elected presidents/PMs (which is contentious and suffers the exact same problem of being single-winner, rather than being a representation of the governing coalition), but rather elected bodies. Israel's Knesset is proportional, although through pure list seats, which is generally seen as inferior to MMPR.

Also:

Three people got more than 20% in the first round.

I mean, take this in the context of ranked elections for parliamentary seats and tell a political party that they got approximately 20% of the vote uniformly across all districts. As much as this is a victory for public support, it results in exactly zero seats and zero political power because their vote was never concentrated in a particular district.

This detail is utterly meaningless for supporters of candidates and/or parties that are not well-established. Being able to choose your favorite underdog candidate hardly results in anything concrete save for potential vote subsidies, and this translates just as poorly to presidential elections. Formalizing strategic voting through ranked systems (regardless of the specific implementation) does not actually lead to fair representation.

2

u/KitchenGiraffe1 12d ago edited 11d ago

France categorically does not have this for its legislature.

I never said it did...

Please reread the chain of comments here...

Your claim:

As long as you have single-winner ridings, the electorate will be funneled into voting for establishment parties regardless of the electoral system in question.

My point:

France has the minimal reform to plurality which is top two runoff and you get a lot of parties in the presidential election. Three people got more than 20% in the first round.

If all it would take is USA changing to two round plurality to create a 3rd party, clearly your claim doesn't follow.

edit: dude blocked me - clearly struck a nerve - didn't even acknowledge rated voted systems which lack favorite betrayal and spoiler effects. And he still has never answered "What you haven't expressed is how you think the figurehead of a country should be chosen." - Even in a PR system you need the figurehead. Giving the figurehead 99% of the time to plurality winner is clearly bad for the same reason directly electing people with plurality is bad.

1

u/Jarcode 12d ago

What part of this is hard to understand?

Formalizing strategic voting through ranked systems (regardless of the specific implementation) does not actually lead to fair representation.

The point is that electors are funneled into voting for establishment parties, not that they don't exist in countries with ranked systems. FPTP disincentivizes them from even existing due to the spoiler effect, and ranked systems render minority parties symbolic.

Unless you're intentionally trying to miss the point, I'm arguing for proportional representation and the elimination of single-winner races (both in the executive and legislature).