You must log in or # to comment.
Ranked Choice Voting.
Where we don’t just have to hold our noses and pick from 2. https://represent.us/A video about it- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
You know what’s even better? Proportional representation and an executive branch that answers directly to your elected parliament.
Ranked choice or STV just means you continue to vote against Republicans and hope for the second worst option of Democrats, but you can feel better about yourself because you put a left-wing party down as your first choice.
STV should only be used for figurehead positions with no real power.
Proportional representation leads to total chaos at government formation, and in Europe it has largely failed to stop the far-right because it gives the far-right a platform by default. It’s not really a better system than STV. The best system is probably a mix between STV and condorcet.
I live in Australia. We have STV at federal elections and PR in Tasmania. Tasmania has gone from the strongest economy in the country to the weakest, as a result of PR.
Anything is better than FPTP though.
STAR voting is slightly better in a couple of situations but yeah, that would be real progress
I would love to be in a position to pick the worse if these two!
Was about to comment. It’s actually better in most situations. Also, we wouldn’t need to redesign our counting/tally infrastructure and machines.
Ranked Choice has a Monotonicity problem. i.e. it’s possible for a candidate to lose if a more people rank that candidate higher on their own ballot without changing any other ballots.
This has happened in recent RCV elections, and resulted in the candidate’s ideological opposition winning.
There’s a group called FairVote that’s been pushing RCV since the early 90s despite the many flaws of the system. Flaws that have been known since the system was first designed in 1788.
Seriously, Instant Runoff Voting was invented by the Marquis de Condorcet in 1788 as an example of a broken election system that can eliminate candidates preferred by a majority of voters.
It was later reinvented in the late 1850s by an Englishman who presumably never learned French.
Anyway a modern voting system for consideration is STAR, it was developed in 2014 by people who have read Condorcet, the the works of Kenneth Arrow from the 1950s. (Arrow’s Impossibility Theorium)
Find more info at www.equal.vote
IIRC it’s been mathematically proven that no single-member electoral system can be perfect. If it wins in one area it fails in another.
My preferred system is to use a standard ranked ballot, count it using IRV until every candidate has above 20% and then switch to ranked pairs (so there are no spoilers, but the daylight savings party doesn’t end up winning by default).
Yeah, just avoid IRV completely.
Also, the thing you’re likely thinking of is Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which only really applies to Ordinal (Ranked) systems. Cardinal (Rated) systems don’t suffer from the failings of Arrow’s Theorem.
I’m not really a fan of the multi-member district, I’d rather just shrink the size of the district until they are more homogonous, and then just send one rep from dozens or hundreds more districts.
Local democracy is more democratic after all.
RCV still has some flaws although of course it is infinitely better than FPTP. Ireland continues to be held in the grasp of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Approval voting seems to be the best according to most scholars on the topic.
And to get to that local elections are very important.
People think that the general election every 4 years is the most important one, but all the other elections shape who will be on the ballot.
I’d be willing to take the worse of two goods at this point.
Then vote in all elections including local, special, midterms and especially primaries not just general. Choose progressives.
We are where we are, because voter apathy. When you don’t vote, other pick the candidates for you.
We have that voter apathy because our voting system is awful, and doesn’t allow most votes to even matter. People should still vote, but that alone isn’t enough to fix anything. As things are now it’s damage control at best.
It’s bad, especially in the US and Canada, but not voting isn’t going to fix anything. Ultimately there are not hard-coded rules saying a progressive vote is worth less than a conservative one, even if the systems are set up to look that way. Voting is always worth it.
from what I hear, depending on the state, it’s not easy to vote in the US.
- In some places you have to reregister beforehand and you don’t get a reminder
- sometimes the next place to vote is far away
- you have to bring a lot of papers
- the election is during workhours on like a tuesday
- there is a huge line and it’s sometimes really hot out
- even then sometimes they delete you from the list without notifying you
especially in southern states, primarily black neighborhoods districts have extra shitty conditions to prevent black people from voting
Exactly. Vote Green.
Wait is that Kang or Kronos
Maybe but not enough. Given gerrymandering and swing states. Do I wish my states politicians were progressive? Of course and I’ll keep voting for them. But when it comes to national politics, my states politicians are blue and that won’t change either way, and it will not be paid attention to because we’re not a swing state
As long as my state is balanced by another I can’t affect, nothing is changing. No matter how progressive we may be, there’s always a West Virginia voting against healthcare, education, technology, jobs, the environment, livable wages, more protective safety nets, etc
You are confusing cause and effect. We have voter apathy because we are where we are. The vote-harder contingent has never once shown that it works. Every single president has presided over mass murder of innocent civilians. Every single party has approved or failed to stop mass murder. There has not been a single victory over racialized mass incarceration in 70 years. The US imprisons more of its people than almost any other country, and has a parole system twice as big as its prison system, meaning it manages the lives 3x more people with its police force than any other country on earth. It’s unfathomably larger than anything the world has ever seen. It absolutely dwarfs the height of the GULAG system.
The system creates the apathy. The apathy doesn’t create the system.
And I saw your other comment that not-voting won’t make things better and that’s true, but voting also won’t make things better. So it’s time to start thinking about what will make things better and time to stop funneling energy into a known ineffective solution.
Texas just had to choose between Talarico and Crockett. Both sounded like great candidates to me and hope that Crockett can continue her path in politics (albeit without the AIPAC issue she has)
To be fair, that is how primaries work. In many states only people registered with the party can pick who ends up at the binary vote. Which forces people to denigrate themselves by capitulating to a party in order to be allowed to run in their primary and get money.
In California the open primary allows everyone to vote for anyone. Last time that left us with 2 Democrats running for the final, but this year there are so many people splintering the Democratic voters, we could wind up with 2 Republicans.
lol, that’s exactly how Schwarzenegger ended up governor. The ballot had 135 people on it.
That had nothing to do with an open primary. There was no primary. All you had to do was pay a fee to get on the ballot. That’s why you see multiple Democrats, Republicans, etc. If there had been a primary, it wouldn’t have been such a circus, but the recall had different rules than a normal election.
What I meant is that it functioned similarly to an open primary, but yeah, I see your point. Sorry, it’s been 23 years since I saw the ballot until I just found it on wikipedia. What a shitshow that was.
Just pointing out that Texas IS one of those states where only people registered with the party can vote in the primaries…
When you go to vote, they ask what ballot you want. You can vote in one or the other, but not both. But you don’t have to declare or register the party you’re with beforehand. You do have to register to vote a full month in advance if you’re not already registered. Source: I live in Texas and voted just last week.
EDIT: For runoffs, you have to stick with the same party you voted for in that race.
No, it’s not possible with unlimited corporate “donations”.
Rs are left hand, Ds are right hand, AmazonEnronMega is the puppeteer.
They’ve made bribery legal, it’s blatant and right out in the open. They all shared the stage, everyone clapped, thunderous applause
Voters can’t out bribe them, they’re too busy trying to make a living on half the pay their parents had
How will you get them to outlaw bribery again? Not legally.
(see Super PACs and Citizens United)
Outside of the realm of politics, but one choice I’ve made somewhat recently that was “better of two goods” was picking a Linux distro
Fedora v OpenSUSE.
Mint and OpenSUSE, actually (I don’t like the Gnome DE)
Ended up going with OpenSUSE, I’ve found I really like KDE and Plasma
Woah, Fedora has a KDE Plasma edition, TIL
Might try that out at some point
Purely based on vibes, I think Mint takes security less seriously than Fedora and OpenSUSE.
It’s time to give up on this idea, given the outrage culture, the death of journalism.
We could have a race of Fred Roger’s vs fred rogers and someone would find or make up a scandal and half the internet will follow. For the foreseeable future all candidates appear to be evil, whether they are different from before or not, so our choice is who appears less evil.
Then there’s the death of the platform. Candidates compete to see how little they can say, to not give their opponents anything to go on, so all future candidates will not appear to have a good platform and our choice is who is less evil
We could have Fred Rogers vs Bob Ross…
But we don’t. We have genocidaires vs genocidaires. We have kids-in-cages champions vs kids-in-cages apologists. We have mass incarceration with racial undertones vs mass incarceration with racial overtones.
There is absolutely no manufacturing of the perception of evil needed. Every single American leader at that level going back as far as the eye can see is basically competing to see how many people they can kill and torture.
Bs, the distinction is clear. With this administration especially it’s never been more clear
Stop lying
Stop fighting on behalf of a white supremacist genocidal juggernaut. Let’s go with your heroes.
Thomas Jefferson - not just a slave owner, a slave breeder and for profit serial rapist. Raped people that he owned as property, took their babies from them, and sold the babies. Kept a very young slave girl in a cave in his bedroom with no windows and only the one door so he could rape her whenever he wanted. He tried to use his political power to end the transatlantic slave trade specifically to increase the price he could charge for slaves that were born on his plantations.
George Washington - order the genocide of indigenous people all over the colonies. Order Sullivan not only to kill every single Indian he saw but also to destroy every single source of food, every orchard, every farm plot, every single way the Indians could eat. Literally called “village destroyer” by the indigenous peoples because he ordered them all killed and burned to the ground.
Abraham Lincoln - famously abolished slavery? Nope. The Emancipation Proclamation only offered freedom to those enslaved peoples of the 11 rebelling states and only if they took up arms against the rebels. Slavery was left intact in the union and up to the states to decide by vote. Lincoln himself is on record stating that he didn’t care much whether slavery was legal or not. He just cared about stopping the rebellion. He is also on record saying that blacks and white probably couldn’t ever live together and that he thought the slaves should all go back to Africa.
Harry Truman - worked closely with the Vatican in Operation Paperclip to save almost 10k Nazis from suffering the consequences of losing the war. Gave them fake identities, money, safe passage, new lives, jobs, and integrated some of them into the workings of the US empire. He also oversaw the Korean War where the USA bombed the north until there were literally no buildings left and dropped so much napalm that Koreans in the North needed to live in caves because there was nowhere else to protect themselves from a chemical fire that bonded to human flesh and caused one of the most gruesome torturous deaths we know of. Oh. He also is the only human being to ever order the dropping of an atomic bomb. He did it twice, against densely populated cities, and while Japan was literally in the diplomatic process of negotiating a surrender with the US.
FDR - Concentration camps for anyone looking vaguely Japanese, including the state seizure of their property
Also, the US was a literal apartheid state until the 1960s.
I could go on. Every president since Reagan is super easy to expose as drenched in blood.
What about the “neutral of two mehs”?
That would imply nice things are possible. Surely you must choose between being against mexican rapist trans pet eaters or pro mexican rapist trans pet eaters as your 2 binary options.
Everyone is talking about ranked choice and other options, I don’t have problems with that, but I’d like to say this:
I think if 80-90% of people voted for that lesser evil, then the greater evil would know that they have no chance, and shift themselves to get more votes. Either the candidate will change policies, or the party will dump those candidates and get someone new.
Problem is, both evils have equal chances of winning, so they have no reason to change significantly.
That’s what surprises me. Why’s the split 50/50 (±2% max)
Why’s the split 50/50 (±2% max)
Same corporations bankrolling them.
I mean why are people supporting the parties in 50/50 manner.
Because the parties are part of a long standing and every effective divide and conquer strategy.
The goal of the ruling class is to create a cross-class coalition so that the ruled-class supports the ruling class. This is impossible to do as a whole, so you have to divide the ruled-class against itself and then get one side of the ruled-class to side with the ruling-class on the basis of that division.
The 50/50 split is actively cultivated. It’s a sign that the parties are doing exactly what their job is and doing it very well.
Yes.
Anybody who says otherwise is likely (on some level) attempting to convince others to crush their hopes of a better world being possible.
I think a lot of people relate to that feeling. Most people don’t just want the “least bad” option — they’d rather feel like they’re choosing something genuinely good.
Ubuntu vs Mint is one example
deleted by creator
