Comment on YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States

• Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t understand it well, but I like your 2 round system. What are some typical flaws with it that might not be obvious? I’m also curious what is the best thing about it, in your opinion

  source

  • iglou@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It is better than FPTP, but not a great system either. The flaws are similar to FPTP: The final winner may not be the candidate that would be most approved by the pooulation.

    The main arvantage of it is that you can go wilder during the first turn, and pick a small party that you truly support, in hope it passes to the second turn. That happens often enough. And if it doesn’t, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.

    source

    • Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That happens often enough. And if it doesn’t, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.

      That’s what I like about it that I thought it would solve for me. I don’t think the person I’ve voted for, in any election I’ve ever voted for, has won my riding (Canada)

      I often have to choose between who I want to represent me, and voting for the strategic choice so that the leader of the country isn’t the worst choice

      source
• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.

  Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (cuz what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but of the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result. But anything is better than FPTP.

  source

  • geissi@feddit.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes

    So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?

    source

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.

      source

      • geissi@feddit.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way

        So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
        If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?

        source

        • -> View More Comments