• StoneyPicton
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I’d vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers

    • Subscript5676
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I’d say ranked ballot (which is also a winner-takes-all system if you weren’t aware) might be even worse. You might think that it’d get rid of smaller fringe parties and quell extremists, but the Republicans in the US would’ve become what they are today even under ranked ballot. Ranked ballot pushes the winning threshold up, but it doesn’t do away with

      1. having a small voter-base decide on who gets to become government,
      2. leading the ecosystem into a 2-party scenario,
      3. doesn’t solve the disillusionment that voters have over the consequences of their votes, and also
      4. encouraging political parties to literally be at each other’s throats and burning bridges instead of leaving or even creating chances to work together.

      Getting rid of fringe parties also means you get rid of budding parties that might actually be good for the nation, and you essentially lock the country into the 2-party scenario even harder than FPTP. So you get all the problems of FPTP and more.

      Australia’s been using this system, and if you talk to Australians, you’ll hear the same kind of stories that you hear here in NA. Maybe worse.