First-past-the-post is litterally the problem you have with American democracy, it’s intentionally designed to only work for 2 competitors in an election race.

You’re not going to have a better democrat party unless you force them to face actual competition with elections under the single-transferable vote they would quickly improve their act facing small parties and independents winning seats. Portland uses this system already for their elections.

Americans need to stop accepting just 2 choices when they deserve more and better.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 3 days ago

Absolutely true and entirely useless on a national scale right now. FPTP is what we have and it's the system in which we must elect candidates who will move us to a better system. Primaries are where the game has to be played right now, and for that we need to kill the notion that loyal Democrats shouldn't criticize sitting Democrats.

Portland is not politically typical. It can be a model, but it has to be a model for political culture before it can be a model for how to enact a better voting system.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 days ago

with elections under the single-transferable vote

While FPTP is trash, that system is kinda trash, too: if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should that candidate win? Not according to single transferable vote/instant run-off.

Example

A > B > C: 2

C > B > A: 2

B > C > A: 1

Who wins according to instant run-off? C. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? B.

Other methods also fail.

There are better methods: this nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties.