Is there something I’m missing? They won because they got the most votes between three parties(but not a majority) and then the most again during the second round of voting between the top two. They won both times.
Ideologies aside your comment is written like you suspect foul play or something. “It’s broken because they could never win if there was competition” is just a terrible take so I assume I must be interpretting it wrong, right?
The new guy won despite winning <5% of votes in the last election. If people vote for the candidate they like instead of trying to game the system by calculating who they’d rather not win the most, then maybe we can kick out corrupt incumbents and get in fresh faces (they’ll get corrupted over time too, at which point you rinse and repeat).
Oh yea for sure, that I’m behind 100%. “Strategic voting” is just silencing your one chance to have a real voice based on whoever’s PR team is doing better.
By the sound of things it’s more like nobody wanted anything to do with the major-party incumbent. Duverger’s law is about how there tend to be two parties. Three and one are equally unstable. When a race becomes a total rout, like a 30-point spread, that dominance can be seen as a power vacuum.
… also, Sri Lanka has ranked ballots. It’s not a Plurality voting system. They have an automatic runoff. That’s one of the more obvious fixes that allows people to even consider supporting a third party, without playing Russian roulette against their own foot.
I just read it as supporting third parties. I thought you were going to mention what happens if a third party were to get more votes but not a majority. I actually don’t know. Would there still be a runoff between Dem and Rep or would the third party actually win it? I’d assume theres some rule that the third party has to win a majority or some bs
Is there something I’m missing? They won because they got the most votes between three parties(but not a majority) and then the most again during the second round of voting between the top two. They won both times.
Ideologies aside your comment is written like you suspect foul play or something. “It’s broken because they could never win if there was competition” is just a terrible take so I assume I must be interpretting it wrong, right?
The new guy won despite winning <5% of votes in the last election. If people vote for the candidate they like instead of trying to game the system by calculating who they’d rather not win the most, then maybe we can kick out corrupt incumbents and get in fresh faces (they’ll get corrupted over time too, at which point you rinse and repeat).
Oh yea for sure, that I’m behind 100%. “Strategic voting” is just silencing your one chance to have a real voice based on whoever’s PR team is doing better.
By the sound of things it’s more like nobody wanted anything to do with the major-party incumbent. Duverger’s law is about how there tend to be two parties. Three and one are equally unstable. When a race becomes a total rout, like a 30-point spread, that dominance can be seen as a power vacuum.
… also, Sri Lanka has ranked ballots. It’s not a Plurality voting system. They have an automatic runoff. That’s one of the more obvious fixes that allows people to even consider supporting a third party, without playing Russian roulette against their own foot.
Didn’t that happen in France in 2017? A party got founded and won.
That happens sometimes even in first-past-the-post systems.
I just read it as supporting third parties. I thought you were going to mention what happens if a third party were to get more votes but not a majority. I actually don’t know. Would there still be a runoff between Dem and Rep or would the third party actually win it? I’d assume theres some rule that the third party has to win a majority or some bs
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, it’s a good thing.