wolftune
commented
7 years ago I'd say "only two candidates" instead of "only one red and only one blue", it's just simpler and shorter and more accurate that way.
I'd change that last "even worse…" sentence to: "We don't have democracy when we aren't free to vote for who we actually prefer."
Homepage: "Why? Our current way of voting, known as Plurality Voting, limits us to picking a single favorite in each election, so whenever there are more than two options, the more similar ones split supporters' votes, giving more weight to those of us who prefer fewer candidates. Because of this fundamental inequality, we are encouraged not to “waste our vote” on a long shot “spoiler” candidate we might really like. Instead, to prevent our worst option from winning, we are compelled to vote for the “lesser evil” - the more tolerable of the two candidates most beholden to well-funded and partisan special interests." This is pretty good but could be clearer and more convincing.
Suggestion: "Why? Our current way of voting, known as Plurality Voting, limits us to picking a single favorite in each election. This works okay if there is only one red and one blue candidate but if there are multiple options, the similar candidates risk splitting their supporters' votes between them, throwing the election entirely! To avoid this dangerous "spoiler effect," we are compelled to abandon our favorite and vote for the “lesser evil” - the candidate from our side of the aisle that the establishment and the media have picked out as being more electable.
Plurality voting puts America in a two party stranglehold where both parties are beholden to well-funded special interests. Even worse, because we aren't free to vote for who we actually prefer it's not actually a Democracy.