The ability of the populous to reject what is offered is necessary to maintain a balanced system. I’m not exactly certain what you are expressing there but I stand by this belief.
Agree to disagree. Even a two party system could see improvement when there is a possibility of failure behind falling in line with ‘least bad choice.’
It’s not a silver bullet - to be sure. but we’re talking about a patient on life support with multiple systems failing. There is no simple fix. We need to deal with each rot and disease locally as aggressively as possible… and be willing to excise anything that is a lost cause. This is triage.
To my eye the easiest way to exploit a two party system is to provide both candidates. The act of tossing them aside can give teeth to the vote and demand better quality. I fail to see any obvious drawbacks to this.
If implemented correctly it would not impact good elections and would drastically affect bad ones. Is that not ideal?
Vote of no confidence. If both fish suck throw em back and find some new ones.
That hasn’t worked with the First Past the Post voting system.
The ability of the populous to reject what is offered is necessary to maintain a balanced system. I’m not exactly certain what you are expressing there but I stand by this belief.
Literally does nothing in the US system and is the fastest way for the fascist party to complete their takeover.
Anyone advocating for this I’m assuming is either a troll or a paid shill.
Agree to disagree. Even a two party system could see improvement when there is a possibility of failure behind falling in line with ‘least bad choice.’
It’s not a silver bullet - to be sure. but we’re talking about a patient on life support with multiple systems failing. There is no simple fix. We need to deal with each rot and disease locally as aggressively as possible… and be willing to excise anything that is a lost cause. This is triage.
Not once has it worked in modern history.
Care to cite some sources?
To my eye the easiest way to exploit a two party system is to provide both candidates. The act of tossing them aside can give teeth to the vote and demand better quality. I fail to see any obvious drawbacks to this.
If implemented correctly it would not impact good elections and would drastically affect bad ones. Is that not ideal?
Modern history being anything that has happened in the lives of even the oldest person alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/
Where are the third party presidents?
What does that have to do with a vote of no confidence?
Were you reading what I wrote or…?