• wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Dunno, it sounds to me like what the British and French elections show is that you don’t defeat a growing the far right with the same neo-liberals who created the material conditions for the right to take hold.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t see any flaw. It’s not perfect, but it is a lot better than first past the post.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The flaw is that you could just do it all in one round with ranked choice instead of having runoff elections and/or tactical voting.

      • Logi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Having runoff elections allows for another round of campaigning and the voters can make a more informed choice given the results of the first round. There is some value in that, but personally I’d lean towards instant runoff or just proportional representation etc.

        • JDCAce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          That value of continued campaigns should be weighed against the requirement that voters need to vote multiple times. Depending on how the votes are cast (in-person vs. mail-in, precinct-based vs. county-based, etc.), subsequent rounds of voting would likely see diminishing voter turnout.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was going to downvote for all caps. But then I checked and the actual title is in all caps, so touché.

    But actually I think I’m going to downvote anyway because seriously fuck that. Nothing personal.