All third parties have a common problem; it is extremely difficult for them to gain traction due to our first-past-the-post voting system. Wouldn't it make more sense to unite into one big tent party with the single goal of changing to a voting system that doesn't split the vote? There could be inner parties such as the Greens or Libertarians, and they can have their own primary within the primary. The parties primary election could use the Condorcet method to elect its candidate and everyone within the party would be obliged to support the winner regardless of what other political positions that candidate has. After they change the voting system, the parties can split ways. Is there any reason why third parties shouldn't do this?

We've had a few posts (can't seem to find the recent ones. The new site seems to have crippled google's index maybe) regarding switching to instant run-off voting. I don't think the current two parties would allow it.

We've had a few posts (can't seem to find the recent ones. The new site seems to have crippled google's index maybe) regarding switching to instant run-off voting. I don't think the current two parties would allow it.

I was actually the one that started that thread. I changed my position about IRV since then. IRV is better than plurality, but it still has a lot of problems and you can still screw yourself over pretty easily by voting your conscience with it. I think the most pragmatic solution is to have an open primary with approval voting and let the top two candidates face off in the general election.

IRV is better than plurality, but it still has a lot of problems and you can still screw yourself over pretty easily by voting your conscience with it. I think the most pragmatic solution is to have an open primary with approval voting and let the top two candidates face off in the general election.

Having a non-partisan primary system would be pretty epic tbh.

If anyone goes to coding horror, there's actually a good lecture that was posted in the last blog on SOPA and PIPA that outlines the real solution to our political problems is switching to a publicly funded election process for senators/congressmen/presidents. I have to say I wouldn't mind that. I definitely think it sucks that people like Mitt Romney, who has a history of flip flopping his position in minutes do so well because they are backed by crap loads of money.

Right now Mitt Romney almost doubles the next closest competitor in campaign contributions. I'm amazed that Gingrich was able to do so well with nearly a tenth of the campaign funds of Mitt Romney [source]. Then you look at someone like Obama who has raised more money by this point than any presidential candidate in history, and he has 3 times the campaign contributions of anybody in the race. ~30 times the contributions to Newt Gingrich.

It's more complicated than this, but the stuff on coding horror paints a much more complete picture than I can layout with a post. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/01/defeating-sopa-and-pipa-isnt-enough.html

America's Elect seems to be a good start for this type of break from the 2-party system.

Even if all third parties unite, at least in the UK and US they wouldn't manage to ever be one of the two main parties. Although yes, I share your dislike of FPTP.

IRV is such a horrible system in practice; it is easily hijacked and a few well-placed, well-funded ads asking to put a candidate in as your second choice can completely ruin the system.



IMO, the thing that ruins it is the deadly pair of winner-take-all and gerrymandering. If you win a county or voting precinct by a single vote you get the entire precinct. If you win a majority of precincts you win them all.

Places with Winner Take All tend to have less political discussion; most areas have a foregone conclusion how they will vote so just a few small areas get attention. This state is republican, don't bother. That state is democrat, don't bother. This state is close, and only three precincts are in dispute, so a bajillion dollars get spent on trying to coerce the three precincts that decide the entire election.

Just look at Florida right now with the RNC primaries. Most of the state has uncontested precincts. The polls are close, but only in a few counties. Those happen to be the counties where money is being spent and visits are being made. The other counties hear some ads as a side effect, but it is nothing to those contested areas. I pity the people living in the political war zone, with robo-calls and constant polling and door-knocking politicos and garbage ads (handbills, signs, door-hangers, and other stuff legally considered litter.)


When you combine Winner Take All with Gerrymandering, you get the parties in power who decide which places will be contested, and they will attempt to ensure the non-contested precincts in their favor outnumber the few hotly contested zones.

Even if all third parties unite, at least in the UK and US they wouldn't manage to ever be one of the two main parties. Although yes, I share your dislike of FPTP.

The goal wouldn't really be to become a major party. It would be just a temporary alliance to change the voting system. It would have a simple message and disband after it achieves its goal.

In the US, this could be done state by state and the party wouldn't have to worry about federal elections. The party could raise money nationally and become a powerhouse in a small state by focusing all resources there. After each victory, the party will have more notoriety and subsequent victories would be easier to achieve with fewer resources.