I FUCKING HATE THE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST/PLURALITY ELECTORAL SYSTEM FUCK IT IT IS A STEAMING PILE OF BULLSHIT THAT PRODUCES STEAMING PILES OF HORSESHIT BLENDED WITH DOGSHIT-STEEPED BOG WATER SERVED CHILLED IN A MILKSHAKE GLASS I HATE IT I WANT IT TO DIE IN A VOLCANO AND THEN WHEN THE VOLCANO ERUPTS I WANT THE LAVA CONTAINING ITS REMNANTS TO SOLIDIFY AND GET SMASHED BY A METEOR IT FUCKING SUCKS HAIRY SHITTY ASS HOW FUCKING DARE YOU NEGLECT VOTERS’ FULL PREFERENCE RANKING AND DENY US A CONDORCET WINNER (assuming one exists) YOU FUCKING DUMBASS FUCK WHY THE FUCK IS THE WINNING CANDIDATE THE ONE WITH 40% SUPPORT THAT MEANS MOST PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY YOU FUCKING SHITLICKER I AM GOING TO CRAP A MOTHERFUCKING CASTLE AND NOW THE ELECTORATE GOES AND BLAMES PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR SIMILARLY-MINDED CANDIDATES FOR SPLITTING THE VOTE NO NO NO IT IS THE FUCKING FIRST-PAST-THE-POST/PLURALITY SHITSTAIN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE WITHOUT FEAR OF THINGS SHITTING THE BED FUCKING FUCK

    • pieguy@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      Correct though you are, it’s still so disheartening to sometimes see people blame others for splitting the vote when it’s ultimately a shitty game we’re subject to.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        It’s a shitty co-op game though. If you’re playing Hearts, it doesn’t matter how “disheartening” it is to blame your partner for trying to play by Spades rules, you’re not playing Spades. Sure, you may both wish you were playing Spades instead, but you aren’t, and playing by the wrong rules is how you lose.

        In the game we’re subject to, splitting the vote is splitting the vote.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      Political fundraisers love it. The two party system is extremely effective at extracting as much money as possible from the wealthy hence why it exists.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    7 days ago

    And all we’d have to do is let people check multiple names. Same ballots - one less rule - basically matches Condorcet results.

    • pieguy@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
      2·
      7 days ago

      I’m truthfully curious how you think that might work! I can absolutely agree that an approval style method is much better than FPTP. My biggest concern is tactics via bullet voting (thus returning to a sort of pseudo-FPTP), which gives a preferential/ranked ballot the edge in my view.

      As for approval approximating a Condorcet winner, I suppose my intuition isn’t making it immediately obvious to me how it would accomplish that. With a multi-checkmark ballot you wouldn’t be able to do the head-to-head pairwise comparisons to determine the true Condorcet winner.

      Always happy to chat electoral systems! :D

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        7 days ago

        Strategery is self-defeating when every idiot’s doing their own bullshit. With enough people the honest answers just kinda happen. So long as nobody’s out there doing Ranked Choice bullshit - putting Adolf Beezlebub ahead of their second-favorite guy because they pretend that means their vote will count twice - the aggregate reflects everybody’s top N candidates.

        The worst possible failure mode for Approval Voting is what we’re already doing.

      • Mr Fish@lemmy.nzEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        Yeah, multi choice is not good, but it’s better than standard fptp. The advantages are that it’s simple and there’s no spoiler effect. Ranked choice or some proportional system (like the MMP that we have in nz) are much better.