I haven't voted for the winner since 1996. As I don't see my own views or those of the major political parties changing any time soon, my voice is largely ignored in the current system.
And it will likely continue to be ignored until the following happen:
1. Abolish gerrymandering in favor of a strictly algorithmic approach to redistricting that cannot take into account voting data from prior elections or current party affiliations.
2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.
3. Alter ballot access laws such that no party gets preferential treatment, and the burden is low enough overall that those people wishing to participate in politics are able to do so without quitting their day jobs.
> 2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.
Approval plus proportional is a bizarre concept; approval, to the extent it makes any sense for public elections (and there are serious problems with it for that purpose) makes sense really only for inherently single-winner elections.
For proportional systems with large bodies elected together, proportionality to first-party votes is probably the most sensible; for bodies small enough that doing that has significant wastage due to the threshold necessary to get one seat, something like STV (possibly modified to drop loser elimination) makes more sense than approval.
(A proportional, STV-like generalization of approval with a form of winner elimination might make sense, but seems intuitively worse than STV itself, even if approval ballots had consistent meanings.)
I only chose approval as an alternative to FPTP because most current ballot-counting machines are capable of handling it with minimal alteration, and it reduces the effects of strategic voting.
It seems obvious to me that any voting system that involves ranking would tend to discourage more open ballot access, as people are more likely to honestly and accurately rank 2 or 3 people than they are to rank 10. If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote, without additional complexity to the voter, it may actually be better fro ma practical standpoint.
Approval ballots is just a special case of ranked ballots with only two ranks, so as far as considering and honestly rating a large number of candidates is concerned, it shares any problem ranked ballots have.
While there are some good arguments for allowing ties in ranked ballots (unforced vs. forced preference), I think there are pretty big problems with forcing tied rankings.
> If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote
I don't think it can, but because there is no clear mapping between actual preferences (or preferences that would be provided on an unforced preference ballot) and approval ballot (or any other limited-rank-preference ballot) markings, that's a hard empirical question that's not really analytically addressable.
And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties?
That's why I said the push shouldn't be to burn down the whole system, it should be minor changes that both major parties can agree to implement. You can't shoot for the moon if you can't even get a launch pad.
> And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties?
If eliminating the existing system is the goal, the way it is achieved is (as has been the case for many changes which aren't supported initially by the major parties) to first move it by, and in States which have, citizen initiative processes which supercede the preferences of elected partisan politicians.
The probability of it happening within the current system is zero. The probability of it happening spontaneously after nuking the current system from orbit is infinitesimal. The expected value calculation from throwing out the current system is strongly negative, whereas the expected value from maintaining the status quo gains at about 2%-4% per year.
Therefore, the likely course of action is clear. Such reforms will never be implemented, and I will essentially be permanently disenfranchised.
I can react to this inevitability with outraged dismay, or with grim resignation. I know what would make me happy, and that it makes sense, and also that it will simply not happen, because this representative democracy is a sham. I can try to ruin things for everyone else because it isn't fair, or I can accept them as they are and take my pathetic, lopsided share of that 2%-4%.
I'll take the latter.
If, however, the status quo implodes on its own, or explodes because someone got rid of it, I'd be all too happy to try to push the new thing that replaces it towards a better direction.
And it will likely continue to be ignored until the following happen:
1. Abolish gerrymandering in favor of a strictly algorithmic approach to redistricting that cannot take into account voting data from prior elections or current party affiliations.
2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.
3. Alter ballot access laws such that no party gets preferential treatment, and the burden is low enough overall that those people wishing to participate in politics are able to do so without quitting their day jobs.