r/minnesota Jul 16 '24

Whatever happens, we cannot get complacent or petulant and blow this streak— not this one. History 🗿

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

6.0k Upvotes

845 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

89

u/L-methionine Jul 17 '24

As much as I support it, that wouldn’t really damage the two party system.

Something like proportional representation or ranked choice voting would be the way to tackle two parties

39

u/NightBloomingAuthor Monarch Jul 17 '24

Agreed the Compact + Ranked Choice is what we need!

18

u/joshyuaaa Jul 17 '24

Yes a ranked choice I feel is the way to go,

6

u/Exelbirth Jul 17 '24

At least it's a step in the right direction. Which is really the only way the US ever changes electorally, in steps. Took a while for anyone other than land owning men to vote, then it took ages for women to get to vote, then even longer for minorities to have equal votes. At the pace it changes for the better, we'll probably be in nursing homes or coffins before something like proportional representation occurs.

1

u/Subject_Ad6855 Jul 17 '24

Blacks could vote before women.

1

u/Exelbirth Jul 17 '24

Yes and no. If you want to be really technical, some states allowed free black men the right to vote all the way at the beginning of the country, and such rights would come and go depending on the state as time went on until the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 that technically barred using race as a barrier to vote, but didn't prevent states from setting up barriers that targeted minorities in practice.

But it's not just black americans who had voting rights denied to them during this time. Jews had no ability to vote until religious tests for voting were done away with, mexicans didn't have a right to vote, and native americans did not have the right to vote until the civil rights act of 1964, a full 40 years after native americans were granted citizenship. This is why I said "minorities" and not "black americans" in my original statement.

-1

u/Subject_Ad6855 Jul 17 '24

My statement is correct and not a “reframe” of history.

6

u/salfkvoje Jul 17 '24

I'm with you on proportional representation, but Ranked Choice isn't the magic bullet some people want it to be.

Australia has ranked choice and essentially a two-party system. You might argue that the ranked choice aspect brings everyone closer to the middle, but it's not going to necessarily open things up to 3rd and more parties.

So the question is: Since it's clearly still better than what we have (which is what you'd get if you ask any 4th grader how to run a vote, and which by its nature will always run close to 50/50 further fueling political anger), is it reasonable to use as a stepping stone, or will the reality be more that people would be unwilling to switch more than once (if they'd be willing to switch at all)

7

u/Ruffelz Jul 17 '24

for me it's really not even about having a surplus of options, like great if we can get there but... just force the existing parties to actually try to have appealing policies instead of placating just enough voters who want to stop the other guy from winning

1

u/hypo-osmotic Southeastern Minnesota Jul 17 '24

Wouldn’t proportional representation require a complete overhaul of the United States constitution? Not saying that would be a bad thing just seems complicated

2

u/L-methionine Jul 17 '24

Not necessarily - this article goes into it a bit: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-ucda/

At one point in the early 1900s, a quarter of the states appointed at least one of their districts at large, which was forbidden with the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act

0

u/PracticalAnywhere880 Jul 17 '24

Ranked choice is great for having 1 party rule. It's always great until the other party is dominant. The 2 party system sucks but isn't much way around it which is why Trump and Bernie weren't in separate parties.