multiparty isn't the problem, it works well in countries with different voting systems. It's the fact that people were tricked into voting against their own interests when they voted against reforming the system
they were told that alternative vote was undemocratic, which it isn't, unfair, which is subjective. They were told it meant "some people get more than one vote while other people only have one" , which is completely untrue.
Wait, who said that and what did they mean by an alternative vote? As an onlooker and not a participant, I’m truly interested and I’m not trying to provoke.
There was a referendum in the UK to reform the voting system. People had to vote on whether or not to bring in alternative vote.
The conservatives misrepresented the new system completely because they knew it was unlikely they'd never be elected again if it got in.
www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alt...
This would mean that if you preferred the greens to labour, but hated the tories, you could vote green 1, labour 2. This means that if the green didn't get the seat, your vote would go to labour. If the green you voted for got a seat, your vote would stay with them and not transfer to anyone else.
if they had this in the US, for example, people could vote for a third party candidate without worrying that it basically meant voting for Trump (or Biden, depending on the state)
There are even better systems, but this would have meant no one ever had to vote for the lesser of two evils again.
