@AlisonW this is such utter garbage. Not your post, but the fact that what you’re saying, while entirely ridiculous on its face, is the only “reasonable” way to “vote.”
“If your candidate won’t get enough votes to win…” is exactly anti-democratic.
We have to have more serious conversations about how voting and campaigning, while they sometimes happen to work to stave off some certainly horrible things, are part and parcel of the general, overarching horror
@AlisonW @seanwithwords
I think we mostly agree, but FPTP is not just making things worse. It is the main problem.
I dont think there exists a well functioning democracy with FPTP. And I am having difficulties imagining one.
@asbjornn @seanwithwords
Indeed. It forces the existing Parties to be broad churches and to welcome everyone they can. Ideally they'd all split to provide better representation for the differing opinions they currently try - and fail - to organise under. But FPTP is a difficult wall to climb for new groupings generally.
I hope we eventually move to multimember 'constituencies'. The theoretical 'local connection' of MPs disappeared years ago and few people know who their MP is.
@AlisonW @seanwithwords
I am far from an expert in election systems, but I think that the one we use i Denmark is perhaps the least bad in the world.
If you know even better one, please let me know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark?wprov=sfti1#
@AlisonW
“Every method has its problems.”
Exactly. Thats why I wrote least bad. The Danish system allows parties to choose the priority ( also to not have one). So, some parties allow voters to select from the list.
I do not know what write-ins is.
@AlisonW
Thank you for explaining. This is not an option in Denmark. You have to announce, that you are a candidate to get on the list.
The need to reduce the power of party machines is significantly reduced, when you have 11 or 13 of them running for seats in the parlament.
AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️
sean, with words
Asbjornn