Democrats hugely benefit from FPTP so they will never advocate for replacing it.
Key point, Newsom of California vetoed a bill to enable more ways to vote then just FPTP.
FPTP is in the benefit of both parties. It rallies and polarizes so any other idea besides “Let’s not find war, let’s fund education and help people” is considered too unpopular to win.
I will advocate to replace it when I’m in office and a Democrat, against the protests of some of my co-workers. As the other commenter pointed out, Newsom killed an anti-FPTP bill, but that means there’s enough support in the California legislature to get a bill to his desk.
More than 17 years after San Francisco approved ranked-choice voting over the objections of then-Supervisor Gavin Newsom, California’s first-year governor got a chance for some payback, vetoing a bill that would have allowed more cities, counties and school districts across the state to switch to the voting system.
The bill, SB212 by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, was overwhelmingly approved by both the state Senate and the Assembly. An analysis of the bill found no opposition.
“Ranked choice is an experiment that has been tried in several charter cities in California,” Newsom said in his veto message Sunday. “Where it has been implemented, I am concerned that it has often led to voter confusion and that the promise that ranked-choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.”
Hey, that system is pretty cool. I like it. You should keep in mind, though, the social relations of production that undergird political reality are much more impactful over the outcome of elections or any other political process, than which specific voting system we have. If the world switched to proportional approval voting tomorrow, it wouldn’t change the relationship between the international imperialist institutions, the workers of the imperial core, and the workers of the periphery. >80% of productive labor would still be done in the periphery, imperialism would still just find ways to quiet dissent and destroy its opponents.
I mean, I want to replace FPTP though. Any kind of proportional system is ideal, but Sequential Proportional Approval Voting is ideal.
Democrats hugely benefit from FPTP so they will never advocate for replacing it.
It is a catch22 where the only answer is to call the Democrats bluff and vote for other parties until the Democrats cave to voter demands.
Democrats also refuse to acknowledge that not voting for them is the only way left to pressure them.
Key point, Newsom of California vetoed a bill to enable more ways to vote then just FPTP.
FPTP is in the benefit of both parties. It rallies and polarizes so any other idea besides “Let’s not find war, let’s fund education and help people” is considered too unpopular to win.
I will advocate to replace it when I’m in office and a Democrat, against the protests of some of my co-workers. As the other commenter pointed out, Newsom killed an anti-FPTP bill, but that means there’s enough support in the California legislature to get a bill to his desk.
Democrats will pull every dirty trick they never use against Republicans as soon as the duopoly is endangered.
Man, I guess there’s no point in even trying to improve the system if there’s going to be opposition.
You cannot improve the system it is fully outside of your control. Only an illusion of control is left.
Hasn’t it been replaced in Maine and alaska?
As soon as it got a slight amount of traction both sides of the oligarchy started attacking it.
Case in point as user pointed out down below:
Gavin Newsom vetoes bill to allow ranked-choice voting throughout California
Hey, that system is pretty cool. I like it. You should keep in mind, though, the social relations of production that undergird political reality are much more impactful over the outcome of elections or any other political process, than which specific voting system we have. If the world switched to proportional approval voting tomorrow, it wouldn’t change the relationship between the international imperialist institutions, the workers of the imperial core, and the workers of the periphery. >80% of productive labor would still be done in the periphery, imperialism would still just find ways to quiet dissent and destroy its opponents.
I hold no illusions that fixing one aspect of this flawed existence will fix all the other aspects of this flawed existence.