People are generally good and decent.
This I feel is the underlying belief of all liberal democracies. Give people a choice and they will choose love over hate, and acceptance over fear.
A little talked about facet of Hitler's rise to power is that he lost the race for President because the rules for the German presidential elections of 1932 required a 50% +1 majority. After losing the presidential election to Paul von Hindenburg in the runoff round, Hitler turned his attention to what (at the time) was considered the 2nd most powerful position in the German government; Chancellor. The voting process for Chancellor was winner take all plurality rules each member of the Reichstag casting an equal vote.
Hitler's Nazi party held 37% of the seats in the Reichstag and named him Chancellor with a plurality vote. Important to understand the power-sharing structure of the German federal government. The President had the war-making, treaty negotiating, and foreign policy powers Hitler wanted. Chancellor, as defined by German government rules of 1932, was analogous to America's Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and Treasury Secretary rolled into one. Chancellor had broad domestic executive powers that Hitler would leverage to seize total control of the German government. When we look back at how a well-educated country with thriving arts and cultural scene, which was a bastion of liberal western democratic ideals, could allow a man like Hitler to take power the answer is; plurality voting. In 1932 65% of Germans voted “Not Hitler” but he still found a path to ultimate power in the plurality rules of the Reichstag.
Compare this to the 2016 Presidential election here in the United States.
Trump would only end up with a total of 44% of the GOP primary vote, but the early primaries were even worse for Trump
-Iowa 25%
-New Hampshire 35%
-South Carolina 33%
It would not be until late in the primary process ( New York primaries on April 19th 2016 ) that trump would break 50% in a primary. At that point, Trump was already the presumptive nominee. The overwhelming majority of Republicans wanted “Not Trump”. Put simply; if the GOP used any form of runoff system that require 50% +1 (even in just the first 10 primaries) Donald Trump would likely never have been the GOP nominee.
If you're thinking “Plurality rules systems really suck.”.... you're right.
If you're asking “Why do we even still use them?”... we shouldn't, but the answer is the same as always.... money.
Initially, when the United States emerged from the 13 colonies, voting for most Americans entailed getting on your horse riding an hour or two into town and casting your vote on a paper ledger. Those votes would then be tallies and transmitted by horse to the county seat to be aggregated, then up to the state capital. You can see how runoffs would be a costly and time-consuming endeavor. Additionally, you'd have to communicate to people with no phones, or even a reliable mail system, which candidates made the cut and are eligible for the runoff. The one-and-done voting system that was a necessity in the agrarian days of the pony express, had a great benefit if you were a white male landowner; people would need to vote strategically for who most aligned with their political views, but also who they perceived could win. This would put tremendous power in the hands of political parties that could consolidate the voting power of political blocks, telling their membership who could win. If you were wealthy enough to control a printing press you'd also have tremendous power to shape strategic voting and create the perception of “legitimate candidates”.
Thus, the incestuous relationship between American political parties and the American press was born. Today it's evolved into a nearly trillion-dollar industry of red-vs-blue punditry, politically slanted news networks & imprints, and paid lobbyists with access to political stars in the party system.
For a plutocrat, the best part of a winner-take-all plurality system is that it creates a feedback loop that entrenches no more than 2 parties. Think about how anyone who dares challenge the two-party system (Nader, Perot) is treated. Simply entertaining voting for a 3rd party evokes scorn from the political intelligentsia. Must Watch →
Ironically 62% of Americans are so dissatisfied with the two-party system they want a 3rd party.
There can not be a free market of political ideas at the ballot box, and any party or candidate that challenges the two-party duopoly is doomed to fail so long as we have winner-take-all plurality voting systems where a candidate can win with just 30% support.
You might have missed it because the media did not cover it, but the largest American experiment in Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff elections took place in the last New York City Mayoral race.
The results: People love Ranked Choice Voting.
Spend a day watching cable news and count the number of times you'll hear “OUR two-party system”“One of OUR great parties” or similar statements that treat our two-party duopoly as if it were enshrined in the constitution. You'll hear it all day.
From the former GOP congressman that runs the first 4 hours of the programming day.
To the former G.W. Bush press secretary.
To Chuck Todd
To a former Federal Reserve chair's wife.
To Goldman Sachs Barbie closing out your day
(Sorry Stephanie your fealty to your Wall street pals can't be hidden)
… By the way, you're watching the “liberal” MSNBC..
Even the progressive hosts like Rachel, Chris, Lawrence, and Joy all treat the two-party system as an intractable immovable reality, when in fact it may be the easiest electoral and government reform we can achieve. It requires no constitutional amendment and no nationally coordinated campaign. Ranked Choice Voting can be implemented at a grassroots county-by-county, state-by-state level.
Fair Vote is a good site to see the spread of Ranked Choice voting and get resources for local action.
Count how much you'll hear about the problem of hyper-partisanship on MSNBC, how bad the political divide is, then count how few solutions to that hyper-partisanship are talked about. All cable news is in the business of partisanship. They've all invested millions in “contributors” with access to party insiders to get the best exclusive hot-takes and commentary of the drama and conflict between the two parties. They've got pre-built splash and chyron graphics with 1000 variations of elephants and donkeys. The stories lines are set and the brand identities are entrenched deeper than any Marvel or DC offering. People know their tribe's identity and know what they want to hear. It's a profitable theater for the masses and the power elite love that they have established channels inside the parties to pay off who they need to. They can get what they want owning 80-90% of the GOP and 5-10% of the Democrats (See Sinema & Manchin). Watch the ads on MSNBC. You'll see many of the same advertisers as Fox News.
-United Healthcare
-Chase
-Goldman Sachs
-Exxon
-Walmart
-Amazon
-Facebook
If you've been programmed by right-wing media to see Democrats as “the enemy” for 30 years there is no “safe” outlet to vote for a Constitution or Conservative party candidate in the current plurality system so they cling to the GOP, even as they know Trump is unqualified and dangerous. At a state level, when a nut job governor assumed power in Maine in 2010 thanks to plurality voting, Ranked Choice Voting provided a solution that worked. The same can happen nationally for our broken corrupt duopoly.
Change the ballot to Ranked Choice you'll “safely” open the political marketplace to new parties and ideas without risking electing the candidate completely opposite of your intention (See Nader & Perot).
More candidates on the ballot with bolder and/or more diverse ideas will increase turnout. Conservatives always vote, increased voter turnout usually favors progress.....because…
people are generally good and decent.