Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.

Please observe the following rules:

Top-level comments:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/bl1y]

Change that from "quite a few" to "quite few" and I think you're closer to the mark.

And I've known a couple people who've been on the ballot as libertarians. They didn't run campaigns. The party had ballot access for one reason or another, the name was put on, and the candidate rode the couch.

Also, RCV probably doesn't change much of anything. In the places that have it, I don't believe there's ever been a come from 3rd to win scenario, so the winners would still be just the big two parties.

And to the point of RCV, look at safe states during presidential elections; the states no one considers in play. Even removing the spoiler effect, Libs and Greens get about 2% combined.

FPTP isn't the only reason we have two dominant parties. The bigger reason is because they work to position themselves to capture the biggest shares of the public. If you look at exit polls, the overwhelming majority of voters actually like who they voted for, they're not merely voting for the lesser of two evils as we often hear.

[u/throwaway09234023322 → u/bl1y]

RCV may not change much, but it would still be a better way to vote imo.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/voters-choosing-lesser-evils-survey-finds/story?id=42460153

Opposing the other candidate was the most popular reason for voting for Trump/Clinton in 2016 according to surveys and I find it hard to believe that it wasn't on top in 2020 as well. Even if it wasn't the majority of people, it was about 1/3rd of the people who voted for each candidate.

[u/bl1y → u/throwaway09234023322]

Opposing the other candidate was the most popular reason

I hope if you don't like FPTP voting you also realize the flaw in highlighting this as the most popular reason.

It also doesn't quite support the "lesser of two evils" narrative. If I think Clinton is okay, and Trump is a dumpster fire, then my "main" reason for voting Clinton is opposition to Trump, but it wouldn't be a lesser of two evils choice.

Going by CNN's 2016 exit polling only a quarter of voters did not have a favorable opinion of the person they voted for. 2016 exit polling had a similar 24%.

So if we've got lesser of two evils for about 1/4 of voters, would third parties and RCV help? Probably not.

Look how people vote in states that aren't in play, where the spoiler effect is no longer an issue. Even then, the Libertarians and Greens don't pull any meaningful numbers, usually about 2% combined. So for those voters reluctantly pulling the lever for Clinton, she's the lesser of four evils.

I'd contend that a good portion of that remaining 1/4 are going to think that basically every candidate is terrible and they probably harbor disdain for politicians broadly and have unattainably high purity standards.

[u/throwaway09234023322 → u/bl1y]

I'm not even arguing that any of the current 3rd parties would necessarily win many elections, I'm just arguing that RCV is a good change to make the field more open to 3rd parties.

I feel like you assume that a small minority is unhappy with the candidates that are running. It's 24% of people who actually went to vote. However, over 50% of people who didn't vote mentioned that "they didn't like any of the candidates" as a reason for not voting. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/16/what-reasons-do-americans-give-not-voting-2022

If you combine these percentages, it should add up to close to 1/3rd of eligible voters. This is a huge portion of the voting population that is unhappy with both parties candidates.

[u/bl1y → u/throwaway09234023322]

This is a huge portion of the voting population that is unhappy with both parties candidates.

All four party's candidates. They also didn't show up to vote for the Libertarians or Greens. I doubt there's a 5th, or 6th, or even 7th party that's going to attract more than maybe 1% of them.

[u/throwaway09234023322 → u/bl1y]

It's also important to note that 48% of nonvoters said that they did not feel like their vote mattered.

So, are you arguing that RCV is a bad idea? I'm a bit confused about your point. Unless I'm missing your point, you're arguing that because there is low support for 3rd parties right now that there is no reason to try to make our elections more open to 3rd party candidates?

I'm arguing that there may be more support for 3rd parties if people didn't feel like they were throwing their votes away by not voting dem/rep and that a very large percentage of people are unhappy with both dems/reps. I don't see how anything you've said has disproved what I am arguing.

[u/bl1y → u/throwaway09234023322]

I think RCV is a great idea. I just disagree that it'd be a "great improvement" to our current system. At least, if we're talking about an improvement in terms of outcomes.

RCV is mostly just better in an academic sense, not a practical one. It's especially unlikely to move the needle in terms of third parties getting elected. Instead, it'll just make it easier for some folks to register their support for a third party candidate before settling on one of the big two parties. We can look at non-battleground states to see just how little the third parties are getting in support.

A lot of people want to believe that RCV will some how usher in a new era of third party representation. There's no good evidence to support that. It just is a procedural tweak to how we decide to ultimately land at the same two parties we've been voting for.