re: US pol
@FinnyLion California has it, I think? Except for presidential elections. I think it's not very good either - it makes the *primaries* a tactical voting situation. Candidates still affiliate themselves with the political parties, and then you have to vote tactically to make sure that the top-two aren't just the two from the party that had fewer candidates and split their votes the least, regardless of any actual positions.
re: US pol
@FinnyLion A simpler case. Six candidates in a swing district. If there's two republicans and four democrats: final election may well be between two republicans. If there's two democrats and four republicans: final election might be two democrats.
Basically, it STILL plays out like having two separate primaries, (D/R) where each voter is only "really" choosing between the candidates of "their" party, except then you mash together the vote totals and see which side split votes least.
re: US pol
@FinnyLion Calfornia's had that primary system for a decade now, and it hasn't resulted in non-two-party candidates having more of a chance as far as I can tell. We don't have a single non-D-or-R state or congressional legislator.
Parties can't agree to put forth one candidate, because picking which candidate for a party to put forth is *exactly the point of a primary* which is what was turned in to an open non-partisan first round.
