176
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2026
176 points (100.0% liked)
politics
31883 readers
3730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I oppose this. Instant-runoff voting (edit: also known as ranked-choice voting in North America) hasn't produced much more political diversity and it didn't lead to a breaking of the two-party system. I think a proportional system like mixed-member proportional might be better for letting in smaller parties and diversifying representation.
Ranked voting also accomplishes this end.
No, it clearly has not. Identify one member of the US Congress elected by instant-runoff voting who isn't from one of the two major parties.
I’m referring to ranked choice voting accomplishing that ending of your note. I’m not referring to run offs.
"Instant-runoff voting" is the generic name for what is called "ranked-choice voting" in North America, "alternative vote" in the UK, and "preferential voting" in Australia.
Instant-runoff voting and ranked-choice voting are one and the same.
Except it doesn't at all.
All Ordinal voting systems trend towards two party dominance. Because all Ordinal voting systems have some degree of spoiler effect.
The Marquis de Condorcet wrote about the mathematical flaws of a system identical to Ranked Choice back in 1785. His chief complaint was that it could not reliably elect the pair-wise winner, that is, the person who would win a one on one election against every other candidate. Condorcet found that the more candidates that you add, the less likely you'll see the pair-wise winner be elected.
There is hope, Cardinal voting systems exist, and tend to work better the more candidates you have (to a point).
STAR was designed back in 2014. It's good.