Does the US need to be fundamentally transformed?

[garbon]

I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.

Why?  Everyone already identifies as a Democrat or Republican, and those are the parties that always win just about everything.  Also, there is no real party other than those two, as all the other parties are insane.

Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.

[grumbler]

I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.

Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time.  The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.

[derspiess]

I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.

Why?  Everyone already identifies as a Democrat or Republican, and those are the parties that always win just about everything.  Also, there is no real party other than those two, as all the other parties are insane.

I agree with the point you're making, but FWIW the most recent poll I've seen has 40% of Americans calling themselves Independent, compared to 31% Democrat and 27% Republican.  I'd say a good chunk of that 40% would be de facto Democrat or Republican (e.g., Seedy calls himself an Independent but we know which party he favors), but it is an interesting trend.

[DGuller]

I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.

Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time.  The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

[Gups]

I think open primaries is the way to go, with the top two facing off whichever party they are from. I know this is being tried in some states.

[alfred russel]

I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.

Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time.  The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

I think grumbler is right if you look beyond the top spot. Voters may be open to a moderate unaffiliated candidate like Ross Perot (that can bring their own funding to the table, but how are you going to get 51 senators? Look at the candidate Romney was in Massachusetts: pro choice, rolled out obamacare, etc. If the Republican Party accepts people like him in liberal states, and you have quasi republicans in the South of the US running as democrats, there just isn't much room for another party.

[garbon]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?

And what would the incentive be for such a big name to do so when the road to the White House is paved through the two established parties supported, as Grumbler pointed out, by tradition, funding and regulation.  It would take a big effort to overcome those obstacles.  So if a person has a real shot at the White House why would they encumber themselves with those problems.

That is why the alternative options are often/always poor - they are the ones that never had a real shot in the first place.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?

It's a chicken and the egg thing.  Our current minority parties are doomed to fail, because FPTP system is designed that way.  Therefore they don't really attract anyone.  With the IRV, real factions like libertarians have a viable alternative to just taking what crumbs Republicans would give them.

[DGuller]

I think grumbler is right if you look beyond the top spot. Voters may be open to a moderate unaffiliated candidate like Ross Perot (that can bring their own funding to the table, but how are you going to get 51 senators?

By coalition or caucusing. 

[grumbler]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

There are, indeed, a large number of voters who are willing to cast a vote for a minor party.  I don't think "wasting their vote" stops them. 

The problem, as I see it, is that these third-party candidates don't get the funding to compete on a level larger than, say, the county level.  There are voters willing to waste their votes, but not funders willing to waste their money.  That, and the blocks the two parties can put in the path of any serious third party in terms of registration requirements and the like, will take some time for a credible third party to overcome.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote.  It could quickly snowball from there.  I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.

There are, indeed, a large number of voters who are willing to cast a vote for a minor party.  I don't think "wasting their vote" stops them. 

The problem, as I see it, is that these third-party candidates don't get the funding to compete on a level larger than, say, the county level.  There are voters willing to waste their votes, but not funders willing to waste their money.  That, and the blocks the two parties can put in the path of any serious third party in terms of registration requirements and the like, will take some time for a credible third party to overcome.

Again, it's chicken and the egg.  Third parties are doomed, so no one really bothers to get themselves invested.  After the first election with IRV, where suddenly a large chunk of the votes go outside the top two parties, viable alternatives platforms can quickly appear.  In the Northeast, I can see a number of purged Republicans running on the "Lucid Republicans" party line and dropping the main GOP candidates to the third spot.

[garbon]

With the IRV, real factions like libertarians have a viable alternative to just taking what crumbs Republicans would give them.

My post wasn't about viability. Libertarian parties are still disgusting even if electable.

[garbon]

After the first election with IRV, where suddenly a large chunk of the votes go outside the top two parties, viable alternatives platforms can quickly appear.

I don't see why this would happen though. At the first election that is.

[Neil]

Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.

Neilism is unconstitutional.  They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.