I know we technically have more than two choices, but what would need to change for it to simply be 1) person A, 2) person B, or 3) throwaway vote.
And maybe there are multiple avenues?
In: Other
Despite what the others say, the problem isn’t just First Past The Post, and changing the electoral system won’t fix it (though it should be changed regardless).
The problem is the US’ Presidential system. Fact is, there can only be one President, and that ultimately means you’re going to end up with 2 parties, the party of the President, and the party that opposed the President. The *balance of power” that Americans tout as a founding principle is largely an illusion, the US Federal Government, and especially the Executive Branch, is one of the highest concentrations of power you can find in any remotely democratic nation (and frankly, moreso than some deeply undemocratic ones. Decentralisation of power and democracy aren’t necessarily correlated).
The US is one of the world’s oldest democracies, and that’s credit to the American system, but that also means it’s lacking many of the more modern democratic features that have developed in recent centuries/decades. The Presidential system is a pretty blatant one, and it’s telling that so few democracies are Presidential. By some metrics, the US is the only significant Democratic Presidential Republic, and that’s assuming you call the US a democracy. But, it’s not the only one. The Electoral College, the way Congress is formed, the way bills are passed, the way the Supreme Court works, etc etc, are all very 18th century conceptions of democracy.
Basically, the US’ system was designed in the Age of Absolutism, and carries much of the philosophy of governance of that era. It would require a near total rewrite of the US’ entire system of governance to not result in a two party system, and that’s just not something that’s likely to happen any time soon.
Opening the field to multiple parties would require each of the states to make changes to their individual election procedures.
Note for those unfamiliar with the US election system: We don’t have National Elections. We have State Elections. See the US Constitution, Article 2, section 1.
These changes would require the politicians in each state to give up some of their power. They are, of course, famous for doing this.
Some, but by no means all, states allow for the citizens of the state via a Resolution process to push through changes to the state constitution and laws. Such things are rarely popular among the political classes and are often blocked.
The other possibility would be for a new Amendment to the US Constitution to nationalize elections.
Removing the state level “winner-take-all” laws for the awarding of each state’s electors is the lowest threshold change for empowering third party tickets. It only requires changes to state laws in enough states representing a majority of electoral votes. No constitutional amendments. No constitutional convention.
Awarding all of each state’s electors to the one single numerical winner of the vote in that state prevents third party tickets from ever earning *any* electoral votes in any state. Consequently candidates representing third parties never have any effect on presidential elections beyond acting as spoilers.
If electoral votes were awarded in each state according to the proportion of the total vote received, then a third party ticket could assemble enough electoral votes across all fifty states to prevent *either* of the major party candidates from obtaining the necessary 270 electoral votes.
Are there any viable 3rd party options at any level of US politics?
Maybe there needs to be a lot of work at the local level to develop alternatives to the 2 main parties.
Encourage the 2 main parties to split into 2 or 3 new parties. Then the centerist wings of the main parties can ally together on key matters to them.
All the third parties would have to suck it up and endorse Democrat. Dems are the only relevant party that supports ranked choice, or any other polling method that doesn’t make third parties a waste.
First past the poll results mean even in a 50.1/49.9% election that 49.9% don’t get any power after the election. The person elected can try to then govern in a way that makes it less close the next time but has no real incentive to. It also means if your splinter group that mostly agrees with Group A that gets 50.1% votes for a different candidate you end up with no power vs putting aside the issues you disagree with and getting some of the power from being part of the 50.1%.
Unless we change that – there is no incentive to have more options. And remember – we do have more than one option in most primary elections. That truly is the time to vote with your heart in the American system. Get involved at the lower levels, volunteer for local candidates. You find good folks there that aren’t corrupted. Some dickheads for sure. But people in it for the right reasons as well.
Colombia requires a “none of the above” option for elections. If “none of the above” gets a majority the election us run again and those who were on the ballot the first time can’t run.
If nobody votes at all then the people who feel compelled to vote might be able to choose a third option.
Real answer is lose the tribalism.
This is a really, really good video on it: https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE?si=n-alGBd32yUSAoZE
Short version: if you only get to pick 1 person to win, and that person just needs to get 1 more vote than the rest of the people running, over time it will whittle down to 2 choices naturally, without any need for corruption or back-room deals.
They would either need to change how the electoral college works, or scrap the electoral college system entirely. The simplest solution would be to introduce ranked ballot voting in the electoral college.
Latest Answers