> so for (almost) all of them the current is preferable to an alternative system where their victory is less certain.
But publicly holding a position in office that a majority of your constituents disagree with, in a high profile question should be a much worse disadvantage than voting to change the system?
> Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system.
At least for primaries, it would be beneficial for the parties themselves (if perhaps not for the candidates) to have both runoff votes and some kind of approval.
> Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules.
This is what I don't understand though as a non american. I don't consider politicians to have much different goals and opinions to my own. If they did, they'd be replaced.
But publicly holding a position in office that a majority of your constituents disagree with, in a high profile question should be a much worse disadvantage than voting to change the system?
> Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system.
At least for primaries, it would be beneficial for the parties themselves (if perhaps not for the candidates) to have both runoff votes and some kind of approval.
> Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules.
This is what I don't understand though as a non american. I don't consider politicians to have much different goals and opinions to my own. If they did, they'd be replaced.