And I think this encapsulates the point that we differ on. A lot third party supporters believe that “the people” secretly agree with them and want to vote for them but are being held back by “the system”. So they figure change the system and all those people who already think we’re right will be free to vote for them.
But I think that’s a delusion. The people are already free to vote for third parties if they want. And the votes that third parties receive reflects the actual level of support they have in the general population. So no jiggering around with the electoral system is going to give any third party a significant share of the electorate.
For evidence of this, let me take my own state, New York, as an example. Let me go back to 2004 when Chuck Schumer was running for re-election to his Senate seat. Schumer’s a Democrat and everyone knew his re-election was a foregone conclusion (he would end up receiving 71.16% of the vote). So the voters had a clear choice - vote for the Democrat or vote for a party that wasn’t going to win.
If anyone wanted to vote their conscience, they were free to do so. They could vote for any party they chose safe in the knowledge that it would have no effect on the outcome of the election. Even a potential third party Democrat would know he could afford the skip voting for Schumer. There was no need for strategic voting.
And the overwhelming majority of voters chose to vote Democrat or Republican. The biggest third party vote getter were the Conservatives who received three percent of the votes. The Greens got 0.5%, the Libertarians 0.3%, the Builders Party got 0.2%, and the Socialist Workers got 0.2%.
That is a fair point. I believe though (as I already pointed out) that there is a world of difference between voting for a candidate and voting for a party (list).
I’m sure Mr. Schumer did a terrific job in the last term/s and people wanted to honor that. He’s probably been around for a while and people in New York know him and his policies.
If the choice, however, is for a party list with clearly defined goals in a program, I believe it is the far more democratic way to give voters more choice to make for a more representative government.
Again though, it’s impossible to change this in the current US political system, because it’s all balanced over a long time to work together. If you fundamentally change one part of the process, no one knows what that will do to the parts you actually didn’t want to mess with.
As an aside, I believe it’s also dangerous to think of “safe” elections and either not vote or vote for a “fun” candidate. If everyone thought “He’s getting 70% anyway, why bother voting at all?”, he might actually not win and your vote could have helped prevent that. I saw this attitude in another thread the other day: “Your single vote can’t possibly change anything.” Yes, it can, if there’s 200,000 of you.
To be fair, the UK and US (and Australian, for that matter) political climates are very different; A “Single-Issue” candidate running for the seat of Little Dunny On The Woad is more likely to be known in the community and therefore have its interests at heart once they’ve managed to halt the construction of that bypass.
Down Under, though, I don’t think that’s as often the case- in the most recent Federal election, I had no idea who any of the candidates were. Never seen them doing anything in the electorate, never heard of them (before or since), and basically the only reason I’d vote for any of them (or not) was based on their party affiliation. Most of my friends said pretty much the same thing, FWIW.
A lot of these “it’s because we’re stupid” or “because the powers that be won’t change what works for them” leaves a sour taste in my mouth. There are plenty of reasons to think that FPTP is a far better way of structuring elections than PR. I would take FPTP over PR * a priori * in an instant.
I guess this is just a rant against PR supporters that think that only they’ve seen the light. E.g. the Liberal Democrats in the UK that want to ruin the, IMO, best electoral system in the world.
I’d echo that. Though recently, I’ve been looking pre-poll for nutbag candidates to vote for. Subsequent preferences go along party lines, so no danger of wasting the vote. (Although my electorate probably has never went to preferences in the 25+ years of my voting career)