politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Disagree, I think any Democrat worth voting for will bring this up. I think this is a "right now" topic which is a perfect rebuttal to their annoyance with third party candidates.
The problem is that some form of ranked choice voting is the right choice, but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50? I have had to in a professional setting, and it’s nearly impossible. It just makes them confused and angry. Unfortunately elections are not the greatest forum for explaining new ideas, and if Harris were to come out for it, she’d likely lose more votes than she’d get.
Can you imagine the headlines and tv news chyrons from certain sources if she even mentions “needed election reforms” right now? The whole race would become about how she’s trying to “break elections” and take over the country. We’ve got people right now seriously talking about Haitians eating pets based on absolutely nothing - and you think her talking about changing how we hold elections is going to help?!
However, during the honeymoon of a new administration and if we get enough seats in Congress, it might be possible to start the conversation that would lead us down that road. Especially if folks are willing to make it obvious that we’re going to hold their feet to the fire when it comes time for the mid-terms.
We’re not talking about something even within the purview of the President - we’re talking Congress and state legislatures. The only way to do it is to have a President using the bully pulpit and citizen groups with such overwhelming activity that the politicians know their jobs are on the line.
I have no personal experience of explaining ranked choice.
I can imagine calculating ranked choice vote outcomes is probably pretty labour intensive (without computers).
However people generally understand the concept of how someone comes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a race, and I'm sure most people have thought about a ranked list of their favourite movies or football players, so it's not some completely alien concept.
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I'm missing something?
And finally whole bunch of countries manage this without any issues ...
Coming from a two party country (UK) the only real issue I see is the fragmenting of power and subsequent need to form endless alliances in parliament. (If I voted for the Greens but the Greens need the the votes of another party and end up doing deals is that really representing my vote..)
This is a good video that gets into the issues of various forms of voting, and argues "approval voting is the best option".
Because it is the best option. It's dead simple, it's easy to give updates mid count, it's easy to audit, it's no more expensive than any other form, etc.
This is not to say it's perfect, but it's easily the best.
Look at the Examples section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting and I think you’ll see it’s probably more complicated than anticipated. And everyone has an opinion on which is the “best” method (which is fair as they are each optimized for different goals).
In theory it shouldn’t be hard to explain, and yep, lots of places all over the world manage it without a problem. But remember in the US we’re so idiotic we can’t even accept the metric system. And a fair numbers of folks are absurdly proud of that fact. We’re also not smart enough to handle health care like everyone else does or provide real parental leave. So while ranked choice voting is objectively superior to first past the post and even aligns with a lot of people’s stated goals for fairness, etc., it’s still a huge uphill climb and many folks will reject it outright without even really thinking about it.
So in summary, it can be done, but not likely to be something you want to run on as a presidential candidate.
All valid points, and I didn't realise the differences in outcomes based on the various counting methods!
That would be complex to explain to many people I'm sure. However, and I'm possibly biased here, there's a whole bunch of systems I don't fully understand (car engines, encryption methods, football tournament knock out rules) but I know they work and tend to accept them and at least understand their limitations and outcomes.
I can totally see how people would reject things they don't understand, and could be easily pushed in to rejecting a new system.
Also I agree that winning an election based on the change could be hard, and perhaps attempting to introduce this change later would work. Though I'm not sure the big parties (labour and conservatives in UK) really want to change a system that works for them!
The sad thing is that RCV might require a constitutional amendment to make it happen nationwide. See for example https://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional/
I like it but I don't see it happening without some other major reforms. Hence why I keep hoping for the 127 DC states plan...
Just call it instant runoff then. It's the same thing (as I understand it) and has been in the American lexicon for some time now.
Democrats benefit from the current system. How many times to hear "Biden may not be great, but you have to vote for him to stop Trump?"
When you're running against the "let's be dictators" party lack of voter choice is an advantage. You don't have to have any policy other than "we won't be dictators" and voters can't hold you accountable for anything without letting the dictator take power.
A major systematic change is never “right now” - progress at that scale is only made incrementally, through continuous work.
Oh yes. I remember Woman's Suffrage and Civil Rights being incremental changes done by Congress after every election. Something, something, overton window. No, not forcing legislative action with civil unrest.
The sad thing is, watching those old speeches idk if those people would make leeway today. Love their arguments and bravery, and sometimes Madalyne Murray O'Hair is absolutely hilarious, but idk if they'd actually make legal progress today like they did then. Idk if Mr Roger's would have gotten funding from his famous speech. We've regressed as a society.