First past the post vs Alternative Vote

At present, we use in the US a "First past the post" voting system, meaning that whomever gets the most votes wins.

Notice I did not say "gets the majority of the votes", but "gets the most votes".

This system is the whole reason we have a two-party system, as it takes only a few elections for all other parties to drop out, despite in initial elections likely never having a majority vote.

Think, "Oh, that doesn't really happen"?

In 12 different presidential elections, the president won with less than 50% of the vote. This included both elections of Bill Clinton (everyone over the age of 30 remembers Ross Perot claiming a huge chunk of the popular vote in 1992), the election of Nixon in 68, and Truman in 48.

In the Alternative Vote method, voters can vote their preference as they wish.

You can vote for who you want to vote for, but if they cannot garner 50% of the vote, then your #2 choice gets your vote. So if you had voted for Perot as your #1 choice in 1992, but still preferred Bush Sr to Clinton, he would be your #2 - and he would get your vote, presuming Perot did not have enough to "first choice" voters to be in the top 2 candidates (otherwise it would be Perot, then Bush).

Really good videos:

First Past the Post - Why it's terrible

Alternate Vote - A better alternative

Now, will this ever happen in the US?

So long as voters are apathetic and not telling Democrats and Republicans to get bent? Sadly, the status quo will remain.

The Trouble with the Electoral College

Gerrymandering explained

Mixed Member Proportional Representation