And they both are dominated by 2 parties. Hardly a defense of FPTP.

Justin Trudeau’s current government is a minority government being propped up by a minor party (the NDP). That minor party were able to get the government to pass a Pharmacare bill in exchange for their support.

With just 24 seats in parliament, the NDP were able to deliver on an election promise to their voters. I’d say that’s pretty good.

What could possibly be fairer?

Approval or STAR voting, since they are more heavily utilized by all citizens instead of just white people, they are purely additive unlike ranked, which allows for easy auditing and making sharing the results possible in real time.

They’re also far easier to explain, which makes voting more inclusive, and the results more straightforward to follow.

RCV is definitely better than what we have now, but if we’re gonna have election reform we should go for the best possible system, not a half measure like RCV.

And yet minor parties fair pretty poorly in Australian elections, and always have. Minor parties currently have 6 seats in Australia’s House of Representatives (up from 3 in the previous parliament).

In Canada, third-parties (Greens, Bloc Quebecois, and NDP) have 56 seats between them.

In the UK, there are 11 third-parties represented in the House of Commons, with 84 seats between them.

Yes, but he would have won if everyone had voted how their heart desired.

Both major parties want you to believe that voting third-party is “throwing your vote away”, but it isn’t true. Simply expressing your heart’s desire and having it counted on the public record makes voting worthwhile, even if your candidate doesn’t win. (And in the case of Ross Perot, he would have won.)

You might as well say that voting for anyone except the candidate who is leading in the polls is throwing your vote away if that’s how you see it.

A woman from a formerly Communist Eastern European country once told me a story. After their country had democratized, there was an election held on the day of a horrible blizzard. Her mother and father wanted to vote for one candidate, and her brother and sister wanted to vote for the rival candidate.

“Why don’t we all just stay home, since our votes will cancel each other out anyway”, someone said. And so her mother and sister decided to stay home. But her father and brother went out into the blizzard to vote, knowing that their votes would cancel each other out.

They just wanted to participate in democracy. They wanted to express themselves and be counted, even if it didn’t change anything.

There are several reasons why the MAGA crowd were allowed to take over the GOP. First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention. Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.

The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right. We don’t have enough of that Karen energy, that “my way or the highway” attitude. And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction, and people will still vote for them because of “vote blue no matter who” and lesser evilist ideology.

Because people not thinking like you is clear indication they are wrong. Sure