Personally I also like the argument that ranked voting keeps parties honest. Your local republican has little interest in representing your views. Hopefully they do that for you, but realistically right now their campaign pitch could consist of walking up to you and pissing in your face and your choice would be to vote blue, not vote, or say "yes sir can I have some more" and vote for them anyways.
It sounds like you're describing the Republican relationship with John McCain. Fortunately, because of mortality, we don't have that problem any longer. Jeff Flake on the other hand, is still doing it. Even when he knew for a fact that he would never be reelected, he still is pissing in our face, and has now surrendered his seat to an actual Democrat. Now at least Arizona will experience having a real Democrat represent them. Time will tell how they handle the future.
Your 40/30/20 example is pretty damn close to the actual Presidential election of '92, that blessed us with the Clintons. Ross Perot took 20% of the Republican vote to a third party candidate. It denied George H.W. Bush a second term, and graced us with a pair of Captain Corruptions that we still have to deal with to this very day. Ralph Nader without a doubt prevented Al Gore from being President, and I believe a strong case can be made that third party candidates prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming President.
We live in a Republic, and each state can make their own rules on elections. From our conversation here, you make a strong case that we should eliminate the multi-party system. The nation as a whole, will never incorporate this lame "Second Choice" model. Either way, you must take it from beyond the enormous power of the IRON forum, and into the weak realm of Constitutional Amendments. I vote to keep our Republic, and our Electoral College.
That's the thing though, you don't even need to touch the electoral college.
Almost none of the current american voting system has anything to do with the constitution. Basically everything that currently exists boils down to "the state legislature passed a law saying this happens"
Tomorrow, your state could decide that you don't get to vote for president anymore. Your states contribution to the electoral college could be appointed by the legislature.Primaries are a thing because everyone decided they should be, not because they're some intrinsic process enshrined in the constitution. How the US conducts voting today is barely older than you are. A hair over 100 years ago, you probably couldn't vote for your senator. Primaries didn't exist. Most of the rules for getting on the ballot are no older than the 40s.
The parties can conduct their primaries however they please. They could dispose of them tomorrow. The GOP could decide that next election, their candidate for president will be decided by a farting contest. There's zero reason either party couldn't do so.
All the 17th amendment requires is that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof". The system for electing them doesn't matter.
For the electoral college it's even less restrictive. They could make the presidential election entirely proportional. Texas has...32 electoral college votes? So the state legislature can go, 52/43/3? Ok we'll appoint 17 pledged to trump, 14 for clinton and 1 for gary johnson. Or california would have appointed 34/18/2/1 Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein.
The push back against this happening has nothing to do with some supposed sacred process (that's barely old enough to retire), but the fact that neither party wants to risk their precious gerrymandered districts.
as far as ranked ballots go...many states in the USA already have pretty much this system in various places. It's just a vastly more expensive and unwieldy version. If you live in Georgia or Louisiana and no one receives a majority, that triggers an entire second election between the top vote getters. Maine outright uses IRV, North Carolina uses it for judicial elections Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have all used it in the past, 10 states currently use some form of run off election in the primaries, including Texas. Not to mention that quite a few large cities use it as well. It's not like this is some new an untested idea in america. claiming that "The nation as a whole, will never incorporate this lame "Second Choice" " is nonsense. A sizeable chunk of the nation already uses something similar at some point in the process.
A ranked ballot simply results in an instant run off without all the expense and clusterfuck and other nonsense with current systems.
And I mean if you want to be a constitutional originalist...feel free to go tell your wife she shouldn't be allowed to vote? And stop voting for the president. Or your senator.
And I mean if you want to be a constitutional originalist...feel free to go tell your wife she shouldn't be allowed to vote?