It’ll never go anywhere but I’m absolutely in favor of it. Where it’s been used, it’s shown to move candidates more to the middle to attract both sides, thus reducing extremism.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
819 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19082 readers
3760 users here now
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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think in the US the more important result would be getting more people to the polls who for now think or are told their third party vote is a spoiler (which it can be, and needs to change). Those people might tend to put Democrat as a secondary vote, and while the third parties won't win national races yet, they'll get more voice and more reason to campaign. Instead of just popping up every four years...right Jill?
This would be an unprecedented win for democracy in America, but it needs an outcry of public support to have any chance.
Look up your congressional reps here: https://www.270towin.com/elected-officials/ and contact them to urge their support.
Remember, we're not outnumbered, we're out organized.
I actually think this is one issue that is okay to be a single issue voter on, because once it's achieved then all voting afterwards will be fairer.
i mean, i would disagree, but i see what you're pushing for here.
This is an issue that exceeds the importance of almost all other issues, aside from like, the immediate danger that electing trump would have.
you should still vote, but push really hard for voting reform, shit's important.
load more comments
(8 replies)
My rep is Peter Welch!
Woop!!
based bill. Voting reform is possible my dudes. Even if this shit fails, you can still push for it at a state level.
Or after November 😅
hey, multiple avenues of success is more success. This looks like it would only require federal voting reform on a congress level, idk if it says anything about presidential, or electoral votes. But even on a state level there are more places where voting is usefully reformed. Your local government for instance.
My state has it. The Republicans oppose it by saying to to hard basically admitting their base is to stupid to vote.
There is evidence that poor voters submit invalid RCV ballots at a higher rate than middle class and rich voters, something that isn't true under FPTP. It's impossible to submit an invalid ballot under Approval Voting, so that's another mark in its favor.
This is not a condemnation of the voting system, but the obtuse way the ballot forms are presented. I wonder who hamstrings the committees that design the forms….
I'd have to look at the specific ballots in question. The study I'm thinking of was concerning the NYC mayor election, so it was likely designed by Democrats, but I don't remember seeing a picture of the actual ballot in the study.
Which is a prime example of how approval is a superior voting system. It is simpler than RCV, so they can't make dumb arguments like that to begin with.
load more comments
(4 replies)
With the Republican Party fracturing, you’d think they would welcome this change. It would help them get elected. But they aren’t smart enough to realize that.
With the Republican Party fracturing
Says who? I see very little evidence that it is doing anything but switfly radicalizing while remaining cohesive.
The New Republic, an online magazine, was created, and is run by Republicans who are absolutely against Trump and those like him. And then there are the Republicans from times gone by that are even speaking out against him and his.
Edit: hell the acronym RINO , Republican in name only, was created by Trump and company. It refers to republicans who don't see things his way.
The term RINO has actually been around for a long time, since George H Bush.
The term “Republican in name only” was used in the 1920s and the 1950s, then in the Ronald Reagan-era 1980s. The term “RINO” appears in print in December 1992 in an article from Manchester, New Hampshire. -source
it would probably fuck them harder, as they would have to "collectivize" for lack of a better term that i cannot remember right now. Far right and MAGA might. But moderate republicans are extremely unlikely to do this, as well as swing voters. It would probably single handedly kill the chances of trump ever winning again.
It wouldn’t screw them over until a legitimate third party is in place. And then maybe. But you have to ask yourself what a third party looks like if it looks like an alternative to both parties. Surely the first third party would just be a split between the parties, it would still take them awhile to win anything at all. But I could see alternatives being a more eco focused party and I honestly think it would screw both major parties. Which is the ideal case. If anything, this screws the dems more because of their voters are more likely to break rank with how the party is going.
i think the moderate voters, both republican and democrat would immediately fuck them over, though the moderate dems are more likely to align and side with current democratic representation, and possibly future as well, just due to fundamental values, so it's less of a problem for the left.
As much as I think that the right is going to split after trumps loss, I think they’re also more cohesive than the left is by far. There are many flavors of leftists and while I think that there are also many flavors of right wingers, they have a much easier time banding around their goals because to be honest they don’t do much. They’re a regressive party. Regression is inherently more unifying than progress because we all disagree on how to achieve progress but regress is pretty simple.
Basically my theory is that the right would lose less from a split than the left because half of the left is ready to jump ship at any moment, as is the right, but the right is more cohesive due to shared identity and regression.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I'm all in. It's on the Nov ballot here in Colorado.
I’m excited to see Ranked Choice Voting gaining more traction with elected representatives. Just getting the idea out into public conversation I think bodes well.
As always I'd prefer a better system like approval or star voting, but I'll take any progress over no progress.
It is incredibly annoying that the worst improvement is the most popular, isn't it. Do you have the option to put through a referendum in your city/county/state? City referendums are usually accessible enough that you and your friends can commit to getting it done with a little legal help from an established organization like Election Science.
I looked it up, we'd have to get about 12k signatures just to get it on the ballot. At which point it could still get shot down in court (it looks like a previous referendum to boycot isreal city wide got shot down at this stage).
So this would be quite a bit bigger of a task than just a few friends. But you're right, this is probably worth doing, or at least bringing attention to the relevant local groups which I've been meaning to join.
Hells yeah, have at it!
No, please don't split the vote against FPTP. That's how you get more FPTP.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It will be interesting to see if it passes Constitutional muster. The Constitution only requires that "the people" choose the legislator. Previous attempts to regulate voting like this required amendments (e.g. elimination of the poll tax).
I don't see how it would violate that. Mathematically, Instant runoff style RCV is still one person one vote. Your ranking just gets to kind of direct where that vote goes once people are mathematically eliminated from contending, the vote only ever counts for one candidate at any given time.
It's not that RCV violates Constitution, but that requiring RCV could potentially be deemed an un-Constitutional violation of state rights. And with the current SC, it seems likely that's how they'd rule. But anything that brings more attention and helps normalize RCV is a good thing regardless
Ahh okay I can see that from a historical sense. I recall part of getting the states to actually be on board with a big federal government was the promise they would be in charge of the way they voted for that federal government.
I will also say, many more historical foundations for the US have been wantonly ignored so long as ignoring it advanced US interests. Like how cops in the US are supposed to be strictly a civilian force, yet they are tried under different laws and are allowed many many things civlians cannot have. That was designed as part of the safties against military dictatorship, but we tossed it aside and give our cops military equiptment becsuse its profitable.
Not quite.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-3/ALDE_00013640/
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
The 24th amendment was a special case as it only applied to federal elections (so technically state office elections could still have a poll tax). There was also a question of voter qualification being outside the generally interpreted meaning of “times, places, and manner” so a statute wouldn’t be enough, but an amendment would.
RCV I think could generally be understood to be covered under “manner” and so Congress can do that without amendment for Congressional races.
make this a rider on a funding bill
Yes please.
Will this be reintroduced when we have a majority in the house?
view more: next ›