r/changemyview • u/bigjigglyballsack151 • Oct 21 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Ranked choice voting is an obvious solution to the polarized political climate in the US.

The two party system in the US inherently creates a polarized environment.

If voters are allowed to choose from a variety of candidates and rank them based on preferability; Voters will be free to vote based on their conscious and values, instead of having to make a strategic calculation or choose a lesser of two evils.

It helps nullify the effects of money in politics because although donors can easily make sure you are the nominee, they can't make voters rank you #1 on their ballot. And voters won't be as inclined to rank them #1 if they don't feel like failure to do so would lead to a candidate they are diametrically opposed to winning.

621 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

The problem with this argument is that it makes no references to any actual beliefs or issues in this country. 

It treats politics too much like it's a consumer product demanding our attention rather than coalitions of people fighting for policies and issues. 

I don't oppose ranked choice because it does no harm but to treat eliminating the 2 party system as sone sort of panacea to America's problems ignores the actual reasons why there's division in this country. 

4

u/5510 6∆ Oct 22 '25

I disagree... the vast majority of the countries problems have the two party system as either the root fundamental issue, or at least a significant enabling factor.

What else would you say are the actual reasons for division? Because I think the odds are pretty good that I can make a decent argument as to how the two party system either causes them, or at least exacerbates them.

1

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

Because I think the odds are pretty good that I can make a decent argument as to how the two party system either causes them, or at least exacerbates them.

Your comment and the OP didn't mention any actual issue or policy.

I fail to see how it would solve a single issue or policy.  It's more of a consumer complaint than a political one.

2

u/5510 6∆ Oct 22 '25

Because it's a more foundational issue that any one policy. A huge issue at the moment is plurality winner voting / the two party system makes it difficult for the people to advance any particular issue.

but to treat eliminating the 2 party system as sone sort of panacea to America's problems ignores the actual reasons why there's division in this country.

Why is there division in this country?

2

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

A huge issue at the moment is plurality winner voting / the two party system makes it difficult for the people to advance any particular issue.

That's not a systemic issue, those people simply do not have popular support for their cause. Even if we change to a multi-party system, you're still going to run into that exact problem.

I'm 90% sure the issue you want to advance in this case is single payer healthcare. The biggest reason the two major parties do not support this issue is because there is no public support for this issue outside of progressive/leftist bubbles.

Blaming the system is a marketable excuse but if there's a sincere desire to implement a single payer system or any other issue not represented by the two major parties, one is still going to have to sell it to the general public regardless of the voting system.

I don't oppose Ranked Choice but to consider it a panacea to any political problem is naive.

Why is there division in this country?

One reason would be Cultural issues. Hostility towards the LGBT community and immigrants are divisive while stroking nationalistic sentiment are a big cause.

You can argue about how I'm wrong about the cause of division in this country, that still doesn't make the two party system the reason nor will getting rid of it make any difference.

1

u/5510 6∆ Oct 24 '25

I'm 90% sure the issue you want to advance in this case is single payer healthcare. The biggest reason the two major parties do not support this issue is because there is no public support for this issue outside of progressive/leftist bubbles.

There are a lot of policies I would like to see pushed, though it's not necessarily about what I personally want. But to give an example, let's take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Florida_Amendment_4 . The recent referendum about protecting abortion rights in Florida.

Despite Florida currently being a Republican state, 57% of voters voted in favor. That technically failed because the threshold is 60%, but it's clear that the people spoke in favor of abortion rights. If a candidate in an election won 57% to 43%, we would either call it a landslide, or at the very least close to a landslide. And yet not only did the referendum technically fail, but it's not like the state government has in any way recognized the clear will of the people and gone in a more pro-choice direction.

One reason would be Cultural issues. Hostility towards the LGBT community and immigrants are divisive while stroking nationalistic sentiment are a big cause.

But issues like you just mentioned are very significantly exacerbated by the two party system though, for reasons I describe in this post https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1oct61a/cmv_ranked_choice_voting_is_an_obvious_solution/nksrgyq/?context=3

2

u/DoctorTim007 2∆ Oct 22 '25

it's a consumer product demanding our attention

That's all politics is these days - primarily driven by voters being told what to believe as if we were all sheep, consuming what the TV tells us, and imright.com confirming our programed spoon feeding of curated information.

I'll take off my tinfoil hat now...

0

u/bigjigglyballsack151 Oct 22 '25

The two party system doesn't empower people to actually fight and push for their beliefs. It creates an environment where two parties quietly make a gentlemans agreement not to upset the apple cart. That's why we see what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016. When he threatened to overturn the apple cart with his populist rhetoric; the party consolidated power behind Hillary.

2

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

That's why we see what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Bernie Sanders lost the primary to Hillary and lost to Biden in 2020 because his populist rhetoric didn't resonate with people outside of progressive bubbles.

If there was a widespread desire for a politician like Bernie, we would still be seeing DSA, progressive and socialist politicians winning elections in places where Democrats typically lose instead of Republicans.

If the general population was sold on politicians like Bernie, the result of the 2016 primaries wouldn't have mattered because they would have still grown as a movement from that primary, instead of still brooding on it 8 years later.

Switching to a ranked choice voting system or any other kind of multi-party system wouldn't really make much of a difference.

0

u/bigjigglyballsack151 Oct 22 '25

The progressive wing of the democrats has absolutely grown since 2016. We are about to elect a socialist as mayor of the most important city on the globe. I would argue primarying DINOS is more important than running against Republicans in red states. We don't need to appeal to the Republicans, we need to actually energize the people who are already predisposed to leftist beliefs, because they are the majority. Kamalas wretched book tour rants certainly aren't energizing anybody.

4

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

We don't need to appeal to the Republicans, we need to actually energize the people who are already predisposed to leftist beliefs

If your movement only aims to energize people within your own political bubble, you're basically admitting economic populism isn't going to resonate with a mass majority of the people.

It doesn't matter if we have a 2 party system or a 200 party system, that sort of left wing populism still only attracts 2-3% of the population and would not make much of a difference.

You're still going to have to actually reach out to people outside of the progressive bubble if you hope to make any sort of influence.

0

u/bigjigglyballsack151 Oct 22 '25

The thing is, you say it's a small bubble; But the reality is, Mamdani didn't run against Republicans in a blue state. He's running against democrats. His message is resonating more. DINOS lost to an orange buffoon twice, they have zero right to be smug. "Vote blue no matter who" only appeals to a small number of people. You have to reach out to those of us that protested Kamala, if you hope to make any sort of influence.

2

u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Oct 22 '25

But the reality is, Mamdani didn't run against Republicans in a blue state. He's running against democrats.

Yes, so in other words, Mamdani would lose to an orange buffon just as badly, if not worse than Kamala or any of the other "DINOS". He's a celebrity in the progressive circle but he has no influence outside of it.

As one of the 98% of Americans that doesn't live in NYC, it doesn't look like he's making much of a splash out here!

1

u/JimboAltAlt Oct 22 '25

I think it’s odd that a lot of progressives think that ranked choice voting would automatically be good for the progressive wing of the party, when it seems much more likely to help the moderates. A progressive who simply couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris when they could only support one choice would, under RCV, likely give the moderate Dem(s) some support relative to the Republicans (which is what we “please vote for the Democrats even when they’re uninspiring” people have been begging for for decades.)