People should be able to vote for more than 1 candidate

[Deleted member 159002]

People should be able to vote for more than one candidate for a single public office. People typically view voting for a 3rd party candidate as 'throwing their vote away' so they settle for a Dem or Repub candidate, even if their beliefs aligned most with a 3rd party candidate. There may be a lot of overlap in views between two citizens who vote D and R up and down the ballot, respectively, but the one or two issues they care about most lead them to supporting a D or R practically all the time.

Prohibiting people from voting for more than one candidate for a single office has negative consequences for repubican democracy. First, it leads to people being elected who only marginally represent their constituents' interests. Second, it leads to polarization. People start rationalizing bad policies they otherwise might not support because that's the only way they see candidates who support the positions the constituent cares about the most to win elections.

 

[Seano]

Seems silly. Why would I vote for 2 candidates? I'd be canceling out my own vote.

 

[Javelina]

they do this in chicago already.

well, they vote multiple times for the same candidate.

vote early, vote often!

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Seems silly. Why would I vote for 2 candidates? I'd be canceling out my own vote.

You wouldn't have to vote for 2 candidates. It would simply be an option. A way of hedging your bets, if you will.

 

[djacobox372]

The solution is a run-off election, which is becoming more and more popular in local politics, as it allows for more than two candidates without any issues of vote-canceling.

There are two methods:
1) Have voters stack rank the candidates, with the ones they put on top getting the highest percentage of their vote.
2) Vote normally, but if one candidate gets less than 50% of the vote have a run off between the top two candidates, if two candidates combined get less than 66% of the vote, have a run-off between the top 3 candidates and so on.

 

[Fawlty]

OP's idea would immediately lead to the very worst in "both sides" hucksterism, as opposing parties are split in two and conquered by a phony. This was understood a very long time ago and several alternatives have been designed and implemented.

 

[Jake the Muss]

It's called ranked choice voting.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

@IGIT

Here's another example of the Democrats indecisiveness likely costing them the election.

Here we have leftists still unable or unwilling to decide or commit to a single candidate on the day of the election.

I don't mind, I want them to lose in 2020.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

OP's idea would immediately lead to the very worst in "both sides" hucksterism, as opposing parties are split in two and conquered by a phony. This was understood a very long time ago and several alternatives have been designed and implemented.

Do you think Democrat and Republican politicians are not phonies?

 

[AngryWeasel]

People should be able to overpass their government. Ala Switzerland.

 

[AlexDB9]

they do this in chicago already.

well, they vote multiple times for the same candidate.

vote early, vote often!

I hear zombies vote straight blue

 

[Javelina]

I hear zombies vote straight blue

my grandfather voted republican while he was alive. now he votes democrat

 

[honzo]

Don't you have preferential voting?
Where you can vote for your favourite first n least favourite last?

 

[dildos]

everyone running should get 1 vote mandatory, kind of like a participation trophy.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Maine does this