RamosDo you agree??!!!
And you think that’s good enough?
Have a better option?
Bernie Sanders?
Oh wait, my bad, the DNC wants status quo.
Not that I disagree with you but my question wasn’t aimed at hypothetically better options but practical, feasible ones.
There’s the rub that makes calamity of FPTP: at lower levels, working to enable better candidates is good and important, but at the presidential level, the definition of “better” is tightly constrained by realism. The greatest saint would be worthless if they can’t get elected, and at worst they would be actively harmful if their spoiler votes pull the less-bad candidate below plurality levels.
Before Bernie would become an option, the voting system itself would need a reform. That’s a tall order to be sure.
Here’s the problem with reality: It’s neither fair nor sporting. Often, the practical, feasible options aren’t good ones. Fall off a boat in the middle of the ocean? Your practical, feasible options are die now, or tread water for hours and die.
Reforming the voting system might compare to trying to swim a thousand miles to shore. But that’s reality.