Not voting should be a valid option in Americas elections.
If neither candidate gets a majority, including non-voters, they both lose and new candidates have to step up to the polls. Rinse and repeat until the citizens actually chose.
It’d fix the ‘pick the one that sucks least’ issue.
Realistically we need to get rid of this first past the post system that directly results in two major parties. If the US had more political parties to choose from and for politicians to align with, we’d have a bit better odds at choosing more representative people.
A sentiment I’ve seen echoed hundreds of times; but nobody ever speaks of a way to actually achieve that.
America already has more than two parties, but nothing but the two major ones get even close to being elected.
How do you move from what you already have to a more balanced multi party system?
This is why I suggested a change that could theoretically be made immediately, and would have a large effect. I’ve heard no other actual solutions put forward.
How would your solution be any different than voting for a third party? It would have the exact same problem of being too risky because it probably won’t get enough votes to do anything other than help the party you don’t want to win. Ranked choice is a simple change that could be implemented quickly with some decent support already.
Point is still include those that didn’t vote for the major players. If votes for a party are not a majority of all possible voters, that party didn’t win.
Whether you force everyone to come in and tick ‘neither’ or just automatically count non-votes as neither is just semantics imo.
Who exactly is running the country while you have successive elections that don’t net a winner? After each election failure do we have another primary? Do you have any idea how expensive it is for municipalities to hold elections?
To be clear, the highest midterm voter turnout was 49% in 2018. So if literally everyone who voted had voted for the same candidate, the candidate who received 100% of the vote would lose; under your system, no one would ever win.
Even in 2020, only 66% of eligible voters turned out. It’s unlikely any presidential candidate could win given those turnout numbers.
Not trying to be rude, but this might be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. You’d literally bring government to a screeching halt because no one could get elected.
Not voting should be a valid option in Americas elections.
If neither candidate gets a majority, including non-voters, they both lose and new candidates have to step up to the polls. Rinse and repeat until the citizens actually chose.
It’d fix the ‘pick the one that sucks least’ issue.
Realistically we need to get rid of this first past the post system that directly results in two major parties. If the US had more political parties to choose from and for politicians to align with, we’d have a bit better odds at choosing more representative people.
A sentiment I’ve seen echoed hundreds of times; but nobody ever speaks of a way to actually achieve that.
America already has more than two parties, but nothing but the two major ones get even close to being elected.
How do you move from what you already have to a more balanced multi party system?
This is why I suggested a change that could theoretically be made immediately, and would have a large effect. I’ve heard no other actual solutions put forward.
How would your solution be any different than voting for a third party? It would have the exact same problem of being too risky because it probably won’t get enough votes to do anything other than help the party you don’t want to win. Ranked choice is a simple change that could be implemented quickly with some decent support already.
You make larger districts that elect more than one representative each.
Or at least that was how it was done here in Denmark.
Your theory is not even remotely sound
Nah. Voting should be mandatory with the option of, “none of the above” included. It should also be a public holiday.
That’s… Basically the same thing.
Point is still include those that didn’t vote for the major players. If votes for a party are not a majority of all possible voters, that party didn’t win.
Whether you force everyone to come in and tick ‘neither’ or just automatically count non-votes as neither is just semantics imo.
It’s not semantics, it’s doing the bare minimum to engage in democracy.
Ranked choice voting would do that, but the duopoly is terrified of it.
Who exactly is running the country while you have successive elections that don’t net a winner? After each election failure do we have another primary? Do you have any idea how expensive it is for municipalities to hold elections?
To be clear, the highest midterm voter turnout was 49% in 2018. So if literally everyone who voted had voted for the same candidate, the candidate who received 100% of the vote would lose; under your system, no one would ever win.
Even in 2020, only 66% of eligible voters turned out. It’s unlikely any presidential candidate could win given those turnout numbers.
Not trying to be rude, but this might be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. You’d literally bring government to a screeching halt because no one could get elected.