> illustrates, is what a poor set of choices we have had.
> We need better candidates who generate real support and appeal other than just not being their opponent. Not sure how to get there.
This is in great part due to First Past The Post voting method[1] employed. The US isn't interested in democracy if they can't at least move from FPTP to something at least as good as Approval Voting. (Which is one of the simplest alternatives)
Some criterions FPTP does no meet from Wikipedia[1][2]:
1. Mutual Majority Criterion: if a majority (more than 50%) of voters top-rank some k candidates, then one of those k candidates must win.
2. Condorcet Winner Criterion: if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election.
3. Condorcet Loser Criterion: if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win the overall election.
4. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion: the election outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot win decides to run.
5. Independence of Clones Alternatives Criterion: the election outcome remains the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred decides to run.
6. No favorite betrayal: Can voters be sure that they do not need to rank any other candidate above their favorite in order to obtain a result they prefer?
At least consider how 2, 4, and 6 affect alternatives like Howie Hawkins, Bernie Sanders, or Gloria la Riva to name some examples. I find it hypocritical when US government officials criticize 1-party states when the US is a 2-party state and as if that was a big qualitative difference.
> We need better candidates who generate real support and appeal other than just not being their opponent. Not sure how to get there.
This is in great part due to First Past The Post voting method[1] employed. The US isn't interested in democracy if they can't at least move from FPTP to something at least as good as Approval Voting. (Which is one of the simplest alternatives)
Some criterions FPTP does no meet from Wikipedia[1][2]:
1. Mutual Majority Criterion: if a majority (more than 50%) of voters top-rank some k candidates, then one of those k candidates must win.
2. Condorcet Winner Criterion: if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election.
3. Condorcet Loser Criterion: if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win the overall election.
4. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion: the election outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot win decides to run.
5. Independence of Clones Alternatives Criterion: the election outcome remains the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred decides to run.
6. No favorite betrayal: Can voters be sure that they do not need to rank any other candidate above their favorite in order to obtain a result they prefer?
At least consider how 2, 4, and 6 affect alternatives like Howie Hawkins, Bernie Sanders, or Gloria la Riva to name some examples. I find it hypocritical when US government officials criticize 1-party states when the US is a 2-party state and as if that was a big qualitative difference.
[1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/First-past-the-post_voting#/Effe...
[2]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#...