Interesting concept. Pro-arguments?
@gigi STV allows for third parties to flourish by completely negating or seriously lessening the spoiler effect.
Why should third parties flourish via anything but their platform?
@meta_self The problem is that our current system quashes third parties. Maybe "flourish" wasn't the correct word. It should have been more accurately stated as "allowed a chance".
@jeffery95014 They are allowed one. The problem is that their seen as too radical. Name a third party that isn't a radical change from the staus quo?
@meta_self Valid point. However, some who are less radical but still support their candidates have to strategically vote, essentially coercing them to vote for someone else. This also leads to the problem of not voting for the candidate you like because you hate the opponent.
After studying STV a bit, I do not believe that it would benefit the US, at least as the US is currently constituted. The reasons are twofold. First, we qualify and nominate individuals, not people, and we do it at the state level, not the national level. Neither the DNC nor the RNC have a strong enough local infrastructure to select candidates to fill seats like the European parliamentary parties do. Second, we do not have anything CLOSE to the relatively open ballot access present in parliamentary countries. The two corporate parties have legislatively blocked all but the best-organized (not even the largest per se) minor parties even from being recognized on the ballot. Only three parties have ever elected a President (not counting the Federalists who were more of a faction), and one of those (the Whigs) no longer exists. No minor party has elected a candidate to Congress since 1949, and none of the minor parties that have ever elected candidates to Congress exist today. There was a time when an STV system could have worked very well in the US--especially during the Civil War era--but that time has passed.