Nearly 50 leaders and activists who worked with Mr. Kennedy at an environmental nonprofit group will run ads calling on him to “Honor our planet, drop out.”
Problem lies in the ‘first-past-the-post’, aka ‘winner-takes-all’ system. There are others, like the electoral college, but I digress.
Third party candidates only ever bleed votes from another in FPTP. Assuming RFK is going after Democratic/‘swing’ voters he’ll potentially end up costing the Democrats votes in key states which, at the margins we’re currently seeing, would potentially allow Republicans to win, holding slightly more votes to be ‘first-past-the-post’ at the end of ballot counting even though a majority of people would’ve preferred a Democrat representative anyway.
Under the FPTP system, voting for RFK as a protest vote, at his 10% margin, becomes a wasted vote because of how FPTP works.
The only true way to fix this is ‘single transferrable vote’, or ‘ranked choice’ voting. Voters simply rank their preference from most desired (1) to least desired (n) on a single ballot.
If the first round of counting doesn’t yield a winner (usually 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in a candidate’s pile), the candidate with the least amount of ballots is eliminated. Ballots are then redistributed from the eliminated candidate, according to the voters next preference on their ballot, amongst those candidates who remain.
Process continues until a candidate has 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in their pile.
The best version of this is ‘full’ preferential voting (every candidate must be numbered), rather than ‘optional’ (number at least one candidate; better versions of this are ‘number at least n candidates’). Optional preferential votes ‘exhaust’, potentially becoming wasted, if the voter didn’t number all the boxes.
This will allow people to protest vote, without actually wasting their vote.
Right now it is but if a group would start a solid grass-roots party they very well could change that. Unfortunately it takes a lot of dedication and money to accomplish this. Alternatively, the teabaggers were a grass-roots movement that had the backing of right wing radicals and conservative money and they managed to take over the Republican party.
Are the US Democrats that vulnerable?
Anyone is vulnerable to a third party polling at 10%
USA is a de facto two-party state.
Problem lies in the ‘first-past-the-post’, aka ‘winner-takes-all’ system. There are others, like the electoral college, but I digress.
Third party candidates only ever bleed votes from another in FPTP. Assuming RFK is going after Democratic/‘swing’ voters he’ll potentially end up costing the Democrats votes in key states which, at the margins we’re currently seeing, would potentially allow Republicans to win, holding slightly more votes to be ‘first-past-the-post’ at the end of ballot counting even though a majority of people would’ve preferred a Democrat representative anyway.
Under the FPTP system, voting for RFK as a protest vote, at his 10% margin, becomes a wasted vote because of how FPTP works.
The only true way to fix this is ‘single transferrable vote’, or ‘ranked choice’ voting. Voters simply rank their preference from most desired (1) to least desired (n) on a single ballot.
If the first round of counting doesn’t yield a winner (usually 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in a candidate’s pile), the candidate with the least amount of ballots is eliminated. Ballots are then redistributed from the eliminated candidate, according to the voters next preference on their ballot, amongst those candidates who remain.
Process continues until a candidate has 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in their pile.
The best version of this is ‘full’ preferential voting (every candidate must be numbered), rather than ‘optional’ (number at least one candidate; better versions of this are ‘number at least n candidates’). Optional preferential votes ‘exhaust’, potentially becoming wasted, if the voter didn’t number all the boxes.
This will allow people to protest vote, without actually wasting their vote.
Uh, yes? Good, bad, or otherwise, always has been.
Right now it is but if a group would start a solid grass-roots party they very well could change that. Unfortunately it takes a lot of dedication and money to accomplish this. Alternatively, the teabaggers were a grass-roots movement that had the backing of right wing radicals and conservative money and they managed to take over the Republican party.