alt Hacker NewsI would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
Replies
Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.
I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.