• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not necessarily. Elections are run by the states, which makes changing FPTP a lot more manageable than changing, say, House apportionment (which would take a federal law), abolishing the Senate (Constitutional Amendment), eliminating the electoral college (Constitutional Amendment) or most other things people suggest to “fix” our elections.

      It being a state thing means that you only need to get state legislatures (or in states with ballot initiatives enough voters) on board which is easier than moving Congress and that you can do it piecemeal - you can change individual states at a time and then use the success of the policy in the first states to promote the idea in other states. State laws are easier for the people to actually have an impact on.

      I’d love to see states switch over to approval voting - it solves most of the problems with FPTP and it’s dead simple to explain. Instead of picking your top pick, pick everyone you’d approve of. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No multiple rounds, or your vote counting for a different candidate depending on previous rounds or anything else. The only ballot change is “Choose every candidate you support” in place of “Choose one candidate”, stubborn voters who don’t want to understand a new system can just do exactly what they’ve always done without issue and most voting systems currently out there already effectively support it.

    • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Which won’t happen when most people are only politically active every four years. They’re like… an army of outraged cicadas.