[zanny]

Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election.

Its all hyperbole overshadowing the root problem - first past the post non-proportional elections are hugely undemocratic. You need proportional legislatures where you have both multiple winners per race for better proportional distribution and alternate votes to first past the post regardless of what they are - STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc. Anything is better than what we have now.

[AnthonyMouse]

> STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc.

What we really need is approval voting / range voting. First past the post creates polarization because it causes there to be two parties and requires every issue to be bifurcated into on of those two boxes, and if your preferences don't all perfectly align with party lines then welcome to hell.

But the problem with proportional representation systems is that they would require flipping over the table in the US. Senators are from specific states, Congressmen are from specific districts, and that part of the system isn't the broken part, it's actually helpful -- if your state or district has a specific problem then you have a specific person who actually cares about it because your vote matters more to them than the vote of someone else in some other place.

But apply range voting to the same districts and states and you don't end up with a two party system, because two very similar candidates no longer split the vote with each other. Then anybody who can represent a given district or state better than the incumbent can win the election regardless of party affiliation, and you're no longer stuck choosing between two party platforms because now there are twelve.

[a3n]

> What we really need is approval voting / range voting.

What we really need is for everyone to vote.

Or, for nobody to vote, which would trigger chaos. As Mel Brooks said, "Out of chaos, comes order."

[AnthonyMouse]

> What we really need is for everyone to vote.

If the people who currently vote are a representative sample of all people eligible to vote, this would change nothing at all.

They're not, so what would end up happening is that both parties would spend more time pandering to the people who currently could vote but don't, the additional votes would end up split evenly between the two parties and the difference from the status quo would be modest at best.

First past the post creates a polarized two party system independent of what percentage of the population votes.

> Or, for nobody to vote, which would trigger chaos.

That would never happen because the fewer people who vote the more incentive there is for anyone go to vote, because your vote counts more when other people don't.

It's more effective in general to cast a protest vote for a third party you know won't win than to stay home -- especially since they often need a certain percentage of the vote for ballot access or public financing. And if enough people do that then the third party actually wins. Then ideally they can do away with first past the post.

[mindslight]

> What we really need is for everyone to vote.

This is squarely in the territory of religion.

[warmwaffles]

> Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election.

People in dense urban areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in rural areas do.

[josephdviviano]

Yes but also, people in rural areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in urban areas do.

If democracies like the USA (Canada has a similar problem) simply counted the votes, the majority of the country would be happier with the outcome. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a good thing.

"U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....

[AnimalMuppet]

You might have a system where neither side can force anything down the other side's throat. To do that, you might need something like one legislature where the cities predominate, and another where the rural has more sway. You might call it a "bicameral legislature" or something.

[josephdviviano]

I'm not sure why in a democracy, the majority of people don't have the majority of the power. If they happen to be urban / rural, so be it.

The developed world is becoming more urban because we do not need that many people in the rural industries any more. It's that simple. Fighting for their 'rights' just makes the country non-competitive. We need to actively incentivize and assist those in rural areas find a way of life where the economy is actually happening.

[zanny]

We should measure people not in the amount of land they own or occupy but as individuals, and every one of them should have equal merit in deciding how society is run.

As it is I could have a substantial unequal share in representative interest moving to a sparsely populated state than I would living in a major metro area. There is absolutely no way to consider that as anything other than a mockery of democracy.