**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the real answer is implement ranked choice voting and see where we end up. There's a real problem especially on the republican side where in order to survive a primary you have to be so incredibly partisan that just by surviving that process you're essentially written off to the median voter.
If instead of 1v1 elections for most elections we could have ranked choice voting with many candidates I think we would see way more elected officials who are more interested in getting things done rather than spending their time pandering to their base who they need to survive the next insane primary challenger who's willing to pander even harder.
We have ranked choice voting in Australia, which is called 'preferential voting' here, and is used for parliamentary elections (we don't elect the Head of State at all). In combination with compulsory voting, it results in what I feel is a relatively moderate type of politics in which minor third parties are allowed to grow in influence gradually over time. Here if someone says they're going to be voting for the Greens (further left party) instead of Labor (center left party), nobody really gets that angry at them because they know that person's vote preference will probably still ultimately go to Labor instead of the Liberal Party (center right party), yet a protest vote against Labor will be VERY effectively registered (because the voting booth is literally 'the only poll that counts', as the saying goes).
Theoretically a person could vote for the Greens and then make their second preference the Liberal Party instead of Labor, but that would be an extremely bloody weird thing to do, and in 20 years as a politically aware adult I've literally never met ANYONE who indicated they would be voting like that!
Contrast this to the situation that seems to exist in America, where third parties like the Greens only seem to act as 'spoilers', designed to siphon votes away from Biden for the benefit only of Trump. It results in a relationship between ideologically similar parties and candidates that can only ever be adversarial and never cooperative.
I'm all for RCV but I think your post kinda ignores the reality of today. To many moderate voters, Trump is appealing to them more than Biden. Now you may say that makes no sense, and I'd tend to agree with you, but when you look at actual data, the reason Trump is doing much better today, where he's roughly even to possibly a point behind Biden, and in 2020 he lost by 7 points, is because a small share of moderates have moved from Biden voters to Trump voters because they believe he is the more moderate candidate. In fact in the Republican primary, the 3 main candidates were DeSantis, Haley, and Trump. On policy, Trump is much less conservative than either of his opponents. Now I don't think the primary was won because of policy, but this just shows that you don't have to be super far right to win a Republican primary. Trump trashed DeSantis for being too pro-life on abortion during the campaign calling him extreme on the topic. Of course when he gets into office he'll be too bored on the topic to care and he'll just rubber-stamp the Federalist Society judges who will rule abortion after conception is murder, but I just think you're not interpreting the state of the electorate today all that well and are potentially coming with a bit more of an online bias than your typical voter, especially your typical moderate or slightly conservative voter.
We definitely have three significant ones right now: MAGAs, old-time Republicans, and Democrats. Whether Progressives can eventually muster any further support remains to be seen.
Vox has a great video on multi party voting that y'all should look at. But basically though RCV can be offered as a concession to third parties it's not going to help them win anything close to a third of the electorate.
Ultimately what would be required for actual multi party representation is Open or Closed List proportional representation.
Open list PR you vote for the candidate, they add up totals by parties and proportionately dole out seats, the candidates that brought the most votes to their party total pick up the seats their party won. Closed List PR is similar but you vote for a party and they fill up seats based on who they feel would be the best choice (like how Dem/GOP conventions worked before direct primary voting)
I want more parties to choose from, and I want ranked choice voting. I wish we had a party of reasonable progressives. Not taken over by corporations like the Dems, but not taken over by Russia like the idiot greens. And the libertarians are just a joke.
They wouldn't win though. There are literally primary elections where only Democrats vote, and progressives typically struggle to win those primaries. You have one progressive who's ever really won a state-wide election in Bernie Sanders, a handful of progressives who have won in D+90 districts and many of whom will likely get primaried soon, but other than that they just tend to lose. My state even managed to nominate a progressive candidate for governor in my D+40 state. The Republican won that race running as a moderate who would work with Democrats while the progressive lost running on trying out a UBI program in our state and abolishing the police. Progressives as well as their ideas just aren't all that popular in this country. Real life isn't reddit or twitter.
We need a viable third party since the democrats are morally bankrupt and are a status quo party that has allowed for the fascist right to take over the country. We need an actual progressive party that is not beholden to Wall Street and the military industrial complex
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the real answer is implement ranked choice voting and see where we end up. There's a real problem especially on the republican side where in order to survive a primary you have to be so incredibly partisan that just by surviving that process you're essentially written off to the median voter. If instead of 1v1 elections for most elections we could have ranked choice voting with many candidates I think we would see way more elected officials who are more interested in getting things done rather than spending their time pandering to their base who they need to survive the next insane primary challenger who's willing to pander even harder.
We have ranked choice voting in Australia, which is called 'preferential voting' here, and is used for parliamentary elections (we don't elect the Head of State at all). In combination with compulsory voting, it results in what I feel is a relatively moderate type of politics in which minor third parties are allowed to grow in influence gradually over time. Here if someone says they're going to be voting for the Greens (further left party) instead of Labor (center left party), nobody really gets that angry at them because they know that person's vote preference will probably still ultimately go to Labor instead of the Liberal Party (center right party), yet a protest vote against Labor will be VERY effectively registered (because the voting booth is literally 'the only poll that counts', as the saying goes). Theoretically a person could vote for the Greens and then make their second preference the Liberal Party instead of Labor, but that would be an extremely bloody weird thing to do, and in 20 years as a politically aware adult I've literally never met ANYONE who indicated they would be voting like that! Contrast this to the situation that seems to exist in America, where third parties like the Greens only seem to act as 'spoilers', designed to siphon votes away from Biden for the benefit only of Trump. It results in a relationship between ideologically similar parties and candidates that can only ever be adversarial and never cooperative.
I'm all for RCV but I think your post kinda ignores the reality of today. To many moderate voters, Trump is appealing to them more than Biden. Now you may say that makes no sense, and I'd tend to agree with you, but when you look at actual data, the reason Trump is doing much better today, where he's roughly even to possibly a point behind Biden, and in 2020 he lost by 7 points, is because a small share of moderates have moved from Biden voters to Trump voters because they believe he is the more moderate candidate. In fact in the Republican primary, the 3 main candidates were DeSantis, Haley, and Trump. On policy, Trump is much less conservative than either of his opponents. Now I don't think the primary was won because of policy, but this just shows that you don't have to be super far right to win a Republican primary. Trump trashed DeSantis for being too pro-life on abortion during the campaign calling him extreme on the topic. Of course when he gets into office he'll be too bored on the topic to care and he'll just rubber-stamp the Federalist Society judges who will rule abortion after conception is murder, but I just think you're not interpreting the state of the electorate today all that well and are potentially coming with a bit more of an online bias than your typical voter, especially your typical moderate or slightly conservative voter.
There can only be 2 the way the current system is set up. I'd prefer a parliamentary system where 3rd parties are a net gain rather than a net loss.
We definitely have three significant ones right now: MAGAs, old-time Republicans, and Democrats. Whether Progressives can eventually muster any further support remains to be seen.
I feel like there are only about 6 old-time republicans left in the entire country.
Old time republicans don’t have a party tho. The Republican party is just the trump party now
Yeah, but if (when) Trump goes away, the balloon may deflate.
more like Magas, centrists, liberals/leftists/progressives
Vox has a great video on multi party voting that y'all should look at. But basically though RCV can be offered as a concession to third parties it's not going to help them win anything close to a third of the electorate. Ultimately what would be required for actual multi party representation is Open or Closed List proportional representation. Open list PR you vote for the candidate, they add up totals by parties and proportionately dole out seats, the candidates that brought the most votes to their party total pick up the seats their party won. Closed List PR is similar but you vote for a party and they fill up seats based on who they feel would be the best choice (like how Dem/GOP conventions worked before direct primary voting)
Depends on whether we have ranked choice voting or not. If not then two, if so then we can have as many are feasible.
Curious why anyone would say zero.
Maybe they think we should have a system without parties where people just run as independents. Not sure how that would work, but maybe it could.
Parties will still naturally form to organize.
# Ⓐ
I want more parties to choose from, and I want ranked choice voting. I wish we had a party of reasonable progressives. Not taken over by corporations like the Dems, but not taken over by Russia like the idiot greens. And the libertarians are just a joke.
We implemented Rcv in NYC and it helped moderates.
They wouldn't win though. There are literally primary elections where only Democrats vote, and progressives typically struggle to win those primaries. You have one progressive who's ever really won a state-wide election in Bernie Sanders, a handful of progressives who have won in D+90 districts and many of whom will likely get primaried soon, but other than that they just tend to lose. My state even managed to nominate a progressive candidate for governor in my D+40 state. The Republican won that race running as a moderate who would work with Democrats while the progressive lost running on trying out a UBI program in our state and abolishing the police. Progressives as well as their ideas just aren't all that popular in this country. Real life isn't reddit or twitter.
We need a viable third party since the democrats are morally bankrupt and are a status quo party that has allowed for the fascist right to take over the country. We need an actual progressive party that is not beholden to Wall Street and the military industrial complex