undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdefrost3y ago0 comments

> I think in the long run voters tend to learn that voting for third parties isn't safe, so two parties continue to dominate.

The empiricval evidence in countries with long term ranked voting (Australia, say) is that bicameral party systems (only Democrats or Republicans have any realistic chance) wither and die, and smaller blocs have a better chance of survival and impact | influence in the House and Senate ..

Two parties "dominate" in Australia (or rather three parties, which are effectively two - the Nat-Liberals being an Rural-Urban conservative coalition of long standing) but nowhere near the degree to which two parties dominate in the USofA; more importantly minority opinions have gravitas and can sway the major vote - none of this bipolar US Dem-Rep deadlock.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

buzzy_hacker3y ago

Also it’s not just about the nominal parties that win, it’s the composition of politicians in those parties, and RCV selects for more broadly agreeable candidates.

godelski3y ago

I think comparing the US to others is often a bad comparison. Most others have coalitions and you'll find that two coalitions dominate. In the US parties act as coalitions. We can see the wide range in opinions from people like Warren/Sanders/AOC compared to those like Pelosi/Biden/Harris. Even in the Republican side you have this massive division, though they've been more effective lately at achieving a party over principle strategy. So two coalitions isn't really any better than what's here in the US because it is in essence the same thing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse