• sfunk1x@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Not really. What you’re asking for is for some unknown third party (like the Pacific Greens 😂😂😂) to pop up into place and immediately take the national reigns like a boss. That ain’t happening, bruv, otherwise it already would have. Ditching FPTP at least gives the average voter the opportunity to vote for different people (like Sanders not having to caucus with Democrats, or Working Families Party not having to caucus with Democrats, etc).

    Or you can sit back and vote third party in a defacto two party system. It’s worked well so far. 🤷🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Ditching FPTP at least gives the average voter the opportunity to vote for different people

      And it only requires having people who are willing to pass it in office. Which isn’t ever going to happen. Which means it’s a great prerequisite that needs to be met before something you don’t want to happen.

      • sfunk1x@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Perhaps in your state, but in Oregon, we can bring initiatives to the ballot through voter signatures. It’s how we got RCV in Multnomah county, and it’s how the (failed) Measure 117 landed on our ballot this year. Sadly, it was badly written and Oregon voters are gunshy after the (also horribly written and implemented) Measure 110 (narcotics decriminalization) got onto the ballot.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Perhaps in your state,

          Yeah. No real referendums in my state. So naturally we’ll need it in all 50 before we consider changing the sweetheart deal centrist Democrats and their Republican buddies have.