306
“Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes”
(electionlawblog.org)
Ranked choice pls
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
306 points (98.7% liked)
politics
30793 readers
2261 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
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
That's why I established residency in a State with Rank Choice
There are only two states with ranked choice voting, I think: Maine and Alaska. A number of smaller municipalities also have it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
alaska has it and lets just say the independant candidates can be weird
GOOD.
You suggest that the main party candidates can't be?
the main party candidates generally don't sue their ex husbands over vaccinating their kids
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
We're also open to executing politicians for treason when they hold more allegiance to money and Israel than the people they represent.
Like seriously NPR. Clean it up a bit and ask that fucking question. Report on how many people you interview agree with that sentiment.
Report on actual sentiment.
That critical 5% that can make a party completely lose. DemSocs can do it to Democrats in pretty much the same way as Libertarians can do it to Republicans.
Ranked choice voting open to all.
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
It has already been preemptively made illegal in several states.
Our de facto two party system isn't statutory. It's not written in the constitution that there can only be two parties. It's just the natural consequence of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post election system. All a candidate has to do is win 51% of the votes to get 100% of the political power. It makes third party candidates essentially nonviable. That's what would need to change if we want to ditch the two party system.
Plug for https://fairvote.org/ . We have a long way before ranked choice voting gets to federal elections, but many local elections are using it now and once people are familiar with it we can hopefully push for more far -reaching adoption.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They’re open to big changes because corporations have captured our political parties and neither party answers to the population, you know, like a functional democracy. Citizens United and deregulation of corporations is where things went wrong.
Hey Democrats and Republicans, will you allow for the possible destruction of your parties? No? ...oh
load more comments
(2 replies)
The 2 party system only works for business and power. We need a system that works for the people.
Two parties? Who is the second party?
"Evil Light" I think.
The two-party system in the United States consists of "Republicans" and "Everyone else".
Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too….
Okay, but like, what tiny percentage of those people could understand the concept, much less have an opinion about it? heh
Ranked Choice Voting. If anyone is curious just know that it's illegal in some places in USA. Similar with general work striking.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I prefer Bob Loblaw's Law Blog
You, sir, are a mouthful.
Of course the voters are open to change... however we need a non First past the post system to even dip our toes in change, and in order to get that in place we need a majority from... that's the real hinderance with fixing politics in general is the people who currently are in charge are the ones who have to change it. It's like if in a sport we needed to pass a ban of a steroid that's been rampant in a sport for 50 years... and all rule changes must go through the currently seated champions of the sport.
Yes, these are the types of structural changes that need to be made before all the wishful thinking guiding people's voting behaviors can amount to anything positive. Looking at the current landscape, ranked choice specifically, Democrats are receptive to the idea because they want leftists to at least put Democrats second while the GOP hates the idea so much they're passing laws per-emptively banning ranked choice for more or less the same reason. There's the path forward.
This is probably the second worse time to have a movement like this.
The only time I could think that it would be worse is splitting the left wing vote before the 2028 elections.
This article isn't about having more parties within the same electoral system (which indeed does not make sense), but changing the electoral system to make more parties viable.
The same was said in 2024. And 2020. And 2016. And every election before that.
load more comments
(14 replies)
I’m all for the MAGA renegade party!
Either that, or massive voter disillusionment on the right that causes them to sit out from the election in protest.
Let them MFs split up. I’m for walking in lock-step with the Blue vote, and dragging the centrists leftward. Once things can be truly changed, then we can split along ideological lines.
The MAGA renegade party is a pipe dream they'll all fall in line and vote red come primary and general.
The only thing this type of thing does is split the left wing.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wish that was true in WA state. Incumbents and the typical 2-party won in landslides. Anyone independent or voicing out against the nonsense that politics has turned into was mostly put in the single digit percent range.
Although our voter turnout was near 18-22% across all districts, so hard to know what people are thinking when they don't fucking vote.
I don’t really understand how you came to this conclusion. Seattle is going to ranked choice voting in August 2027. As I understand it, Pierce, Thurston, San Juan and Benton counties plus Bellingham are also moving to RCV.
Does Washington not have a two-party system? Most states and the federal election are not explicitly two-party but are designed in such a way that there can never be a viable third party. It's a system problem, not a candidate problem. That's what the post is about.
But the people winning the elections by being second worst say that any changes to the voting system are too complicated for the electorate to understand.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This can be done on local level but on national level you would need constitutional reform which is extremely unlikely.
load more comments
(3 replies)
One of the biggest issues I see on the ground is that voters aren't stepping up. This is even at the local level. This is a problem all across the USA. Good people aren't willing to run for a lot of these local offices. Nobody's preparing the next generation / replacements to take over once older candidates age out or move up the chain. Then even if you get multiple people to run for a local office, these voters who are supposedly tired of the 2 party system don't volunteer, donate, or even bother to show up to events where the candidates are making themselves available for dialog. They aren't interacting with candidates' social media. So realistically, if voters don't change, nothing's going to change about the 2-party system.
Never gonna happen. The duopoly is never gonna allow it.
view more: next ›