With a electoral system like Ranked Choice voting, people would feel safe to vote for whomsoever they wish, as their vote would still be counted even if their preference didn’t win.

Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.

Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.

Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Republicans LOVE first past the post voting. Just sbsolutely adore it. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans want?

More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is represented by their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.

Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states?

Some day we will be able to vote for who best represents our interests. We won’t need to grovel on our knees, begging for representationin government. We won’t need to wait for the Republican party to stop existing.

We can do it right now. We don’t have to get over a damn thing. If anyone needs to get over themselves, it would be the democrats who assume they are the only way forward.

Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    That would have taken a Constitutional amendment and I don’t think that would have been possible any time within the last 24 years.

    The Democrats never had anywhere near the majority needed and I doubt enough states would be willing to ratify it if they did.

    I think the electoral college is stupid and archaic, but I also think we’re stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      There’s a workaround that several states have signed on for. Your state allocates all of the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. But they only do it once enough states sign on to make a majority.

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I think best case is that you get enough purple states to sign on. But either way, it’s a lot more feasible than an amendment.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      You ever know until you try. They couldn’t even be bothered to get behind the idea. It’s bitten them in the ass repeatedly.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s been estimated that as little as 2% of the population could kill an amendment if their state legislators voted likewise against it.

        We don’t need amendments anymore, we need to uproot the whole fucking thing and start fresh, new state borders, new constitution, new rule of law.

        They’ve rigged the game for long enough to justify flipping the table and pulling out the ol’ bully pulpit to smack the states into their fucking place.

        Eisenhower set the precedent to flip the national guard around at their state governments if they act up, and Reagan set the precedent of cutting them off and letting them starve for funds until they get with the fucking program.

        These subhumans want civil war anyways, let’s give them the war they’ll never forget again, and then let’s actually see that damn southern occupation through to the proper finish this fucking time!

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think they did know, which is why they didn’t try. You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the states. There has been no time between 2000 and 2024 when that would have had the remotest chance of happening. All they would have done would be to waste taxpayer dollars on something performative.

        Like I said, I don’t like the electoral college and I wish we didn’t have it, but we’re stuck with it.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the states

          You don’t actually need Congress at all. You need 2/3s of the states to initiate the process via the convention route, and 3/4 to ratify (so functionally, probably 3/4 of states, assuming that a state willing to ratify is also willing to initiate).

          But functionally, there is no way that 3/4 of the states are going to make a change to shift power away from smaller states to larger states.