Instead of calculating who they hate more, the Sri Lankan people voted for the candidate they liked - an anti-corruption activist who got ~3% of the vote last time and was supported by a fringe left-wing party - and he won the presidency over the candidates of the two established parties.
This is cool news. It’s always great when politicians who think their jobs are secure get a reminder that voters really do get to decide who will represent them. That said…
Sri Lanka has a form of ranked choice voting. It looks like it hasn’t seen much use, with the two major parties trading the Presidency back and forth for some time, but it exists, and that’s a lot better than first past the post, which a lot of us are stuck with for the time being. If you’re trapped in America like me, then I definitely recommend agitating and organizing for voting reform, but until that happens, voting as if it doesn’t exist yet, because it doesn’t.
This election had fewer total votes cast than the last California gubernatorial election. Major political upheavals like this can happen, but they are more likely to happen in smaller elections. If you care about outsider political parties, the best move is to organize at the local or state level, and build a respectable foundation. The next time I hear someone talk about voting third party at the US Presidential level, I’m going to have a Ralph Nader / Florida / Bush vs. Gore flavored aneurysm.
It’s always great when politicians who think their jobs are secure get a reminder that voters really do get to decide who will represent them.
Right. It’s also a reminder to the newly elected guy that he, too, can be replaced if he does not serve the people.
Sri Lanka has a form of ranked choice voting.
While this is technically true, only ~2% of voters seem to have put a second preference. So for practical purposes, it behaved like a plurality election.
If you’re trapped in America like me, then I definitely recommend agitating and organizing for voting reform
The sad thing is that my country has a parliamentary system, and local parties have repeatedly crushed the national parties in state elections. And yet the media and pundits ignore them under the excuse that if people don’t support the crook of their choice, ‘the wrong lizard would win’. In reality, their bosses are probably worried that if any half-competent and honest leader comes to power, (s)he can easily find enough evidence of corruption to throw them and their friends in jail.
Instead of calculating who they hate more, the Sri Lankan people voted for the candidate they liked - an anti-corruption activist who got ~3% of the vote last time and was supported by a fringe left-wing party - and he won the presidency over the candidates of the two established parties.
Ah so this is funny because it disproves the rule. How do you like them apples, Duverger?
Just doing a tiny bit of research…
This is cool news. It’s always great when politicians who think their jobs are secure get a reminder that voters really do get to decide who will represent them. That said…
Sri Lanka has a form of ranked choice voting. It looks like it hasn’t seen much use, with the two major parties trading the Presidency back and forth for some time, but it exists, and that’s a lot better than first past the post, which a lot of us are stuck with for the time being. If you’re trapped in America like me, then I definitely recommend agitating and organizing for voting reform, but until that happens, voting as if it doesn’t exist yet, because it doesn’t.
This election had fewer total votes cast than the last California gubernatorial election. Major political upheavals like this can happen, but they are more likely to happen in smaller elections. If you care about outsider political parties, the best move is to organize at the local or state level, and build a respectable foundation. The next time I hear someone talk about voting third party at the US Presidential level, I’m going to have a Ralph Nader / Florida / Bush vs. Gore flavored aneurysm.
Right. It’s also a reminder to the newly elected guy that he, too, can be replaced if he does not serve the people.
While this is technically true, only ~2% of voters seem to have put a second preference. So for practical purposes, it behaved like a plurality election.
The sad thing is that my country has a parliamentary system, and local parties have repeatedly crushed the national parties in state elections. And yet the media and pundits ignore them under the excuse that if people don’t support the crook of their choice, ‘the wrong lizard would win’. In reality, their bosses are probably worried that if any half-competent and honest leader comes to power, (s)he can easily find enough evidence of corruption to throw them and their friends in jail.