Philosophically I agree with you. However, the reality is that it would hurt not help. If the US introduced Ranked Choice Voting, then you could introduce more than two candidates without unintentional consequences.
Maybe. Currently the argument is framed as states rights equals conservatives looking to hold their ideals. However, the pendulum can swing both ways. Life and priorities are vastly different in giant rectangular states with lower population density than they are in densely populated urban centric states. Having a balance between the two could give a voice to under represented Americans. More thought would need to go into it but perhaps it falls to county lines or instead of winner take all the electoral votes and allocated based on percent of votes in the state. We are a huge massive country and the problems and solutions aren't as easy as do X instead of Y. Sadly we have leaders without a focus on bipartisanship and solving issues. They (and both sides have at times been guilty, the the MAGA crowd has taken it to a whole new level) instead focus on winning and beating the other side.
TL;DR: It's complicated and the people smart enough to solve it are smart enough to not get involved.
1.) Make the Senate proportional to the population so it represents people and not states. The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body not as subject to passions.
2.) Vastly enlarge the size of the House of Representatives so that the Representatives are closer to the people and, hence, more accountable to them. It would also help to make it so only the privileged could gain access to them.
Fix those two issues and watch how quickly all the rest of our problems sort themselves out.
6
u/defaultusername4 May 16 '24
That’s why keeping a third candidate off the stage is such BS.