this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
295 points (98.7% liked)

politics

30762 readers
2394 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
295
“Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” (electionlawblog.org)
submitted 2 days ago by onpoliticsnews@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

NPR:

Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House… Continue reading

The post “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” appeared first on Election Law Blog.

(page 2) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago

Of course the voters are open to change... however we need a non First past the post system to even dip our toes in change, and in order to get that in place we need a majority from... that's the real hinderance with fixing politics in general is the people who currently are in charge are the ones who have to change it. It's like if in a sport we needed to pass a ban of a steroid that's been rampant in a sport for 50 years... and all rule changes must go through the currently seated champions of the sport.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 2 days ago (20 children)

This is probably the second worse time to have a movement like this.

The only time I could think that it would be worse is splitting the left wing vote before the 2028 elections.

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I’m all for the MAGA renegade party!

Either that, or massive voter disillusionment on the right that causes them to sit out from the election in protest.

Let them MFs split up. I’m for walking in lock-step with the Blue vote, and dragging the centrists leftward. Once things can be truly changed, then we can split along ideological lines.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The MAGA renegade party is a pipe dream they'll all fall in line and vote red come primary and general.

The only thing this type of thing does is split the left wing.

[–] QueenHawlSera@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

This^

Never Trumpers today are just called "MAGA"

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

At this point, I’m hoping the left has wisened up and won’t fall for it anymore. History needs to stop repeating itself. Leftists get defeated because they can’t put aside their internal squabbles and form a united front.

[–] Space_Cowboy92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m going to assume you think liberals are leftists?

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, but sometimes we have to form tenuous alliances to save our asses.

The DSA is never gaining traction in a fascist state where voting is actively manipulated and resistance is persecuted. Remember Franco crushed communist/leftist resistance and dominated Spain for 40 years. The republicans lost because of their internal squabbling. They couldn’t put their differences aside to further a show of strength.

We’re too little in number to make an impact right now. We need to keep getting DSA endorsed candidates in from the ground level. We need to primary candidates in such a way as to pull the party to the left. People need to see that socialist governance is rational. Mamdani is already paving the way.

What we cannot afford is a split. We should be building a united front of anyone left of center, not tearing it down. Getting into purity tests right now when we’re stuck in a burning house isn’t a winning strategy.

[–] Space_Cowboy92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well I’m here to tell you democrats are right of center at best. There is no party in the US, even the DSA, that would be considered left. Leftism begins at anti capitalism and they all support the status quo. Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.

Either we’re too big a voting bloc to ignore that we lose elections for dems because we don’t vote for them, or we’re such a small minority that dems don’t need us to win elections. But too many people, especially dems, like to blame us for when they lose but then refuse to cooperate and blame us that they didn’t win.

This whole “let’s not divide the left vote” is simply another uneducated talking point that does nothing but keep the pendulum swinging.

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe instead of trying to pull leftists to the center, dems grow a spine and finally work with leftists.

I think we’re trying to get to the same point here. By “pulling the party left,” it means defeating neoliberal candidates across the country and putting pressure on the left to grow a spine and acquiesce to anti-capitalists, aka entryism.

The material conditions are not right yet to go rogue and third-party people. We’re stuck in a two-party winner-take-all election system, unless we can get enough of our guys in to undo all of that. “We must walk the same streets as our oppressors,” to paraphrase.

I still have hope for the midterm elections. But electorialism may not be enough. Efforts need to be focused or organizing ground up for the general strike - the one that brings our civilization to a grinding halt and twists the arm of the capitalists so hard, that they’re forced into accommodation. Violent uprising is untenable in the USA. We’re technologically at a disadvantage with our lil’ rifles and handguns, without any combat training, to boot. No organization of violent resistance is happening under fascism without being brutally suppressed.

I’m for the great split. But the fascist hard-right party needs to be fractured and defeated first. They need to succumb to internal infighting before we do.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago

It's incredibly effective. If I were a campaign planner for the conservatives, getting the left to complain about their own candidates would be the low hanging fruit.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 2 days ago

They're not going to learn.

After 2024 I don't think they ever will.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It's a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening, but this would be the best time for this to happen if it lead to proper new policy that changes how voted are counted.

Now I see what you mean about the idea of a big Left state splitting its electoral votes. Which would be bad in 2028. But the snowball's chance is most/all states shifting to a non FPTP voting system and making a 3rd party viable.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I wish that was true in WA state. Incumbents and the typical 2-party won in landslides. Anyone independent or voicing out against the nonsense that politics has turned into was mostly put in the single digit percent range.

Although our voter turnout was near 18-22% across all districts, so hard to know what people are thinking when they don't fucking vote.

[–] CombatWombat@feddit.online 5 points 2 days ago

I don’t really understand how you came to this conclusion. Seattle is going to ranked choice voting in August 2027. As I understand it, Pierce, Thurston, San Juan and Benton counties plus Bellingham are also moving to RCV.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does Washington not have a two-party system? Most states and the federal election are not explicitly two-party but are designed in such a way that there can never be a viable third party. It's a system problem, not a candidate problem. That's what the post is about.

But the people winning the elections by being second worst say that any changes to the voting system are too complicated for the electorate to understand.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

It's a system where the two highest in the primary to the general, regardless of party. Sounds good on paper but it's still possible for the vote on one side to be split, similar to the spoiler effect, resulting in two of the weaker party winning when there are nearly dozens of candidates of the stronger parties sharing the votes.

And yeah, we need better elections (and not Ranked Choice either. Score or Approval are simple to explain and don't have those effects where you can help someone you don't want to win by voting for those you do)

[–] bashibazouk@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Challenge mutual exclusion in political parties. In the US we vote for the person, not the party. Why can't I belong to more than one political party?

The problem I see is meaningful change to the voting system requires a constitutional amendment which is a high bar. Political parties are not in the constitution. Getting rid of mutual exclusion just requires a good legal argument...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Not happening as long as we have a pay-for-play system. Both Dems and republicans profit from having a corporate- and AIPAC- financed winner-take-all voting system.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Party principles have a history of changing over time.

I think we can still salvage "democrats". We just have to make it far left.

If we do make a new party though, what animal or color ?

I mean white seems like the only option. But that's kinda maybe problematic.

Can't be part of the white party.

Rainbow?

Oh and animal. Hm.
Anything is better than a literal jack ass.

Even if we stick with the Dems vs Republicans. Can Dems get a new mascot. ?

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Can’t be part of the white party.

WHITE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!…wait

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If we're reconfiguring the system enough to have a third party, we can transfer white to the Republicans to align with their primary organizing principle.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah that should work

[–] dhork@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not a big fan of proportional representation, because it can be gamed just like the current system, but in proportional representation you don't actually cast a ballot for a person. While a third party candidate might sneak in there with some proportion of the vote, for the most part it will still be D's and R's with most of the vote, so whoever is the first D or R on the list will basically have the job for life, with no practical way to challenge them at all.

I do like ranked choice voting, in conjunction with a massive increase in the size of Congress. 435 is way too small. 1435 might be the right number, if my math is right that could be about 250k people per Rep. Let's see people try to gerrymander 175 Congressional Districts in California....

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can have proportional voting where votes go to specific people. Basically just do away with House districts and then have X slots. Top X vote getters get elected. You can also have a form of ranked choice where excess votes (beyond what's needed to secure a position) get proportionally spread among the other candidates according to their second choices.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But that is functionally identical to what we have now: in a district with 5 slots, D's run 5 candidates, R's run 5 candidates, most people pick D or R down the line. A district can still be drawn to favor one over the other, except instead of 1 safe seat, you have 5 safe seats.

The only change would be that an impactful third party can only change one of those five safe seats. By moving to this sort of proportional representation, you actually dilute third parties' power further.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Proportional voting doesn't give X votes to each voter. You can just look up how these different options work instead of imagining that they're dumb and you were the one to figure out an obvious flaw.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I have read up on it, and people who advocate for it take as a given that it would make things better, but I just dont see it. I go by three axioms:

  • as long as drawing districts is a political process, districts will be drawn to the partisan advantage of the major party in charge

  • Once you have multi-member districts, major parties will run a candidate for as many slots as they are allowed to. And party-line voters will expect to have a way to express a party-line preference. I expect that any system which does not allow a party to run a candidate for every slot will be challenged.

  • Once you disassociate votes with individual candidates, major party bosses can dole out "safe" seats as patronage. But if you don't disassociate votes with individual candidates, a party can still sweep a multi-member district with 50.1% percent of the vote for each spot

The only case where proportional voting helps is where the multi-member district becomes so large that it is the only district, and now it can't be gerrymandered at all. But you still have other problems then.

I would sooner keep districts the way they are, but make many more of them, and introduce either RCV or a true runoff when no candidate gets 50%.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›