Despite the apparent inevitability of Bernie Sanders losing the Democratic nomination, the political revolution that he has exposed will continue to grow. More and more people across party lines will eventually realize that campaign finance reform is the first step towards reclaiming the government for the people and not for the 1 percent and the special interests.
Another obvious awakening is manifesting itself in the inequity of the two-party system now in place. This fall’s presidential election is showing this convoluted predicament very clearly. Here’s a very probable scenario: voter number one likes the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. But he cannot vote for him because he knows that, if he does, it will take a vote away from Donald Trump, his second choice. And then, God forbid, Hillary Clinton will win.
Voter number two wants to vote for the independent candidate, Jill Stein. But he can not vote for her because that would be taking a vote away from his second choice, Hillary Clinton. And then, God forbid, Trump will win.
This reality effectively kills any chance for a third-party candidate to win. There is an alternative and it is called the “Alternative Voting Process,” ( otherwise called “Instant Runoff Voting). It is used in many other places in the world.
In this system voters would choose their first and second choice. If their first choice is not one of the top two vote getters, their vote will go to their second choice.
This system would allow the voter to choose third-party candidates without the current conundrum of actually aiding the candidate from the opposite political spectrum. It would more accurately reflect the will of the people.
Please tell me why this does not make perfect sense.