In the "awesome but never gonna happen" file, I think it would be incredible if we could turn it into a two-vote system: You get one vote for your guy, and one second-place vote in case your guy doesn't win. I bet Gary Johnson would have won this election if that had happened.

I'm WAY in favor of having an alternative vote system.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...wchart.svg.png

How so?

As long as two parties dominate I don't see how an alternative vote would have a major effect. That type of system seems to work well in 4+ party systems.

Plus, if Gary Johnson/Ron Paul became viable candidates, Democrats and Republicans would attack their stances instead of ignoring them. There are true libertarians but from the people I have talked to (all around my age), most Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters only gravitate towards them because of a few select issues. Those issues are currently only discussed by libertarians and therefore, in my opinion, the discussion is extremely one-sided.

If the mainstream parties joined in we would hear the other side along with a full dissection of Libertarian's other stances. I would guess a lot of those one or two issue Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters would abandon them at that point.

I'm not saying that would be bad, I would welcome most of those discussions, but I think the Libertarian stance would remain unpopular.

But the two parties only dominate because of the way the curent voting system works.

I think the hardcore libertarian stance would remain unpopular as well, in the end. But a lot of Romney's supporters would have preferred (or at least think they would have preferred) *anyone* other than Obama. So they'd mark first choice Romney, second choice Gary Johnson. Same for Obama's supporters: first choice Obama, second choice Gary Johnson. And depending on how the numbers played out, the third party candidate could very possibly win. And that, in turn, would force the Republicans and Democrats in subsequent elections to field more moderate candidates who didn't spur complete and utter hatred from the other side.

But I thought you worked up from the least popular candidate, as Ibby's post shows? If that happened, then the Gary Johnson vote would have been split between Romney and Obama (assuming his supporters would actually make a choice, which I'm guessing most wouldn't).

This would encourage third party support (protest votes) but unless one group really took off, which I don't think any would for the reasons stated above, the election ultimately would remain with two major parties.

I agree that this type of system would help keep third parties as possible options once they gained enough support but I don't think that process would really help getting that initial support unless you had a centrist party.

Well yes, if you go with the flow chart Ibby posted, then a third party still wouldn't have much of a chance unless they garnered a significant number of "first choice" votes. But I can also imagine a more mathematical system where, for example, your first vote counts as two points, and your second vote counts as one. Say the vote is split 40-40-20, with each major party's voters naming the third party their second choice out of spite. Reps and Dems get 80 points each, and the third party gets 120. Even if the third party voters went 100% in one direction for their second choice, the R or D would still only gain another 20, and lose.