"Voting for a third party accomplishes one thing. It takes votes away from one of the other major-party candidates. Given that the status quo favors the Republican candidate – think the Electoral College – voting for a third party is probably going to take votes away from Joe Biden. Whatever you think of him, he’s better than the alternative. (The alternative, by the way, likes making jokes about being a dictator.)

Actually, it accomplishes another thing. It enriches presidential candidates for third parties that do not work in cooperation with one of the major parties. (It’s called “fusion voting.”) For instance, the Green Party — these people know they can’t win. They know the status quo prevents them from winning. They don’t say that, though. In the space between what they know and what their supporters don’t know is a scam. In the absence of systemic change, third parties that don’t cooperate with one of the major parties are inherently exploitative."

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    fedilink
    English
    352 days ago

    Yes, yes it would.

    The way ranked choice works is that everyone’s first rank is tabulated.

    If a candidate gets the majority vote in the first choices they win outright.

    If not, the candidates with the fewest first choice is eliminated, and those that voted for them, they move on to their second choice picks.

    Votes are now recounted. If no one still has a clear majority, the person with the lowest votes is again eliminated, with their voter’s votes going to the next rank in choosing.

    You go through that until someone gets a majority.

    Other similar systems include STAR voting, Score Voting, and Approval Voting.

    • @NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      -3
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I mean… none of that actually helps a third party at the presidential level. Or even addresses spoilers. Going to address your points out of order to make my own

      If not, the candidates with the fewest first choice is eliminated, and those that voted for them, they move on to their second choice picks.

      So… the third party candidates get eliminated in the first round. Because they cannot compete with the two big parties in terms of campaign funding. Assuming it doesn’t end in the first round because…

      If a candidate gets the majority vote in the first choices they win outright.

      So the republican wins because there is one right wing fascist running against a dozen flavors of Left wing. Or the Democrat wins because all the third parties were a negligible percentage of the vote to begin with.

      I HAVE seen proposals that change the ordering so that a third party “can’t” be a spoiler (I forget the specifics but basically it is removing the small percentage votes first and only comparing once you downselect to N candidates where N is usually 2) but…

      People confuse the idea of making a third party candidate viable with minimizing how much you are pissing away your vote by voting for a third party in the presidential election. Ranked choice is great for the latter but it still has many of the same spoiler problems without additional changes. And, arguably, would increase the impact of third party spoilers if one party over-splits. I continue to point people toward the mess in France where basically all the Left wing parties had to unite and make a coalition to MAYBE stop the right wing fascists.

      Personally? I would much rather we abolish the electoral college and just do a popular vote. That will have a MUCH bigger impact on third party candidates because it suddenly becomes viable to run a national campaign where you convince maybe 15% of the overall populace rather than needing 40% of each county just to end up on the politico map. Because the latter is what really screws over third parties at the presidential level because they just don’t have the money or resources to sway enough counties to get any meaningful electoral college votes. And ranked choice alone has no impact on that.