Choice
Choice
128 comments
-
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn't a "Dems" problem, it's a two party problem.
Even if state and local elections are ranked choice, the presidential election will still be a first past the post election and the electoral college is still designed for a two party system.
-
Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren't hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.
-
It is a two party problem but dems and their cult-like followers act like the politicians they worship can do no wrong. Both parties are businesses and that’s it.
-
-
My city had ranked choice voting implemented by Democrats in the 1970s. They elected the first black mayor, who is still one of our most beloved mayors in the city's history, under RCV.
Then Republicans made it illegal at a state level when they had a trifecta. Democrats keep introducing bills at the state level to allow RCV, and Republicans take more and more drastic action against it. So yeah... I want more Democrats in my state government so we can have RCV.
-
Why don't you name the city and mayor?
-
Because I didn't think it particularly important for countering this same old tired BS. But if you really want to know, it's Ann Arbor, MI and the mayor was Albert Wheeler.
(Edit and fun fact: I'm writing this from Wheeler Park right now ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ)
-
-
-
Someone's unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn't make an ineffective solution the answer.
The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:
-
If a solution doesn't have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn't matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.
Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.
Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.
-
It pressures the system in those cities or states, which is actual pressure to the system, just not direct pressure on the federal government. History shows you can mount pressure through local and state changes until it gets overwhelming support on a federal level.
You can make the argument there might be more effective or quicker solutions, but this is unquestionably one path toward it.
-
-
if they wont give us what we want or need they dont deserve our votes, maybe next time they will offer more than "im not the other guy", if the democrats will not be pushed left then they should be destroyed.
-
You are correct, but everyone is too afraid to work together to find a better candidate/ new party. We no longer can organize ourselves. We can only be organized by institutions apparently. I'd love to be proven wrong on this but watch how much resistance you get. Just trying to suggest that maybe we could do better. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
-
-
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
-
Both parties say third party votes helps the other side. I have a feeling, it actually just helps 3rd party. Especially if both sides don’t want it.
-
Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.
From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general "3rd party" term, but with an actual party name attached.
-
this should be required reading before anyone is allowed to leave a comment on Lemmy about voting
-
-
-
Kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America
-
The Dems will preserve a political model that's at least malleable. 3rds will need to work together to push ranked choice more and more into voters' field of view.
Republicans will swan-dive into fascism, in which case 3rds (and everyone else) are fucked.
Dems aren't going to help 3rds directly, but any one who wants the possibility of a 3rd party victory later is committing political suicide by failing to vote blue as a means of buying time. Voting 3rd when that 3rd has no potential for victory is self-destructive.
-
Also just following the green party a bit and educating your self about them... you learn that the green party is as focused on selfish personal horse race politics that deals with power plays, as the dem party (though on a smaller scale) instead of actual change.
This political cycle, Green party had a chance to radically push the Dems on palestine, by putting up a candidate that would drop out if Dems changed their position on support for Israel.
Jill Stein rejected it.
Just the fact they rejected it shows to me that they're not serious about actual political change. They just want to be a spoiler. They continue to only run in general elections instead ofnpushing in states.
So I guess i have no home party, but Ill vote for the lesser of two evils still.
-
This is incredibly dishonest. The Greens actually did the compromise thing in 2020 and didn't go as hard so Dems could beat Trump.
In return they got Democrats doing Genocide and AOC Pelosi now yapping about how Greens are "predatory" honest because they dropped in the 2020 polls.
Democrats can not do Genocide they don't need to Greens to bow down for them.
-
-
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable.
Much like during covid when they gave preferential treatment to themselves while simultaneously working to remove the Green party from ballots.
-More to the point your comment runs contrary to reality and the very nature of the joke pointed out in the meme.
-
...and a swan-dive into fascism is preferable to that because...?
Our political model is janky as fuck. I don't need to explain the pitfalls of a two-party system to you - I already know you fucking hate it or you wouldn't be eyeing a 3rd in the first place. I hate it too. But a two party system is what we have, which means you have three options:
- Red (fascism)
- Blue (not fascism)
- Let the other voters choose Red or Blue for you (abstain or vote 3rd).
Which of those options will do the best job of accomplishing YOUR goals?
What even are your goals? 3rd party as POTUS? You gotta lay the groundwork first. 2016 was the perfect stage for a 3rd party victory within our current model: we had an absolutely hated candidate running on both of the big two; a voterbase just as sick of the status quo as they are now; a Libertarian with a genuinely likable personality, some solid policy stances, and who managed to shift the "crazy" that Libertarians were reputed for to an honestly charming variety of "quirky", and a surprisingly steady stream of coverage by the media. We will never see better conditions for a 3rd victory in our current model.
So how did the Libertarians do with that perfect storm? 3%. They got fucking 3% of the vote. How do those conditions compare to today's? Red is running that same hated sack of shit Trump; but Blue couldn't find a candidate hated as much as Hillary if they tried to - to the contrary, Harris is churning up optimism like I've never seen before. The die-hard Reds and Blues aren't going to change their votes over that, but the folks in the middle are going to be far less inclined to vote 3rd than they were in 2016. 3rds have gotten pretty much zero media attention this time around. They literally do not stand a chance to beat even 2016's 3%, let alone enough to actually win.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that's more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection... that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don't do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it's game over for everyone except the fascists.
If you see a different option that'll lead to a 3rd victory in our current model, I'm all ears; but if not, you still need to set the stage with favorable conditions, to include preventing the stage from being burned to the ground.
-
-
-
So three of the more than 250 elected democrats are trying, not for the first time by the way, to get the rest of their party to take it seriously. Talk to me when more than 2% of the Democrats do something about it because otherwise its basically just a platitude.
-
This is a few people not the party as a whole.
Notably there is a platform out there for the Democratic candidate. Unless I missed something RCV is not on the agenda.
-
-
-
To the surprise of nobody Republicans also don't support a voting system that would end the Democrat-Republican duopoly.
-
-
Isn't what they established in Alaska thanks in large part to democrats???
Edit: lol, seeing a lot of downvotes but I'm not seeing anybody refuting it either. Feel free to prove me wrong of course!
-
There's a "Vote No on Ranked Choice Voting" sign on my way to work.
-
Someone just needs to paint over the word ‘no’
-
I'm not sure if it's legal to deface political signs like that.
Edit: it's very much not
-
-
-
Some will at small, minor levels, but never enough to cause a serious threat. It's like how it's socially permissible and legal to make worker co-operatives and the like, the fact that it's non-threatening to the status quo keeps it a useful carrot that will never arrive at a scale that causes drastic change.
-
Ah today's bothsidesism
-
Gotta give people their Two Minutes Hate or they might remember that voting for Democrats is, for most Americans, the actual least evil option on November 5.
-
-
Progressive Democrats will and do. Neoliberal ones do not as they only care about the donor class
-
I guess the reason they won't is to avoid the "there's 5 different left parties" meme moment.
-
No, and it's stupid to suggest they would.
-
I bet dems would be more open to ranked choice if more people voted for third parties, because as long as the population believes they must vote Democrat or Republican and no one else, neither of those parties have any incentive to change. If lesser evilism stops getting people to vote for the two ruling parties, then there would be incentive for them to change. Short of that you're relying on politicians to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing, which is a fools game.
-
The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was "A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate", we'd all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn't be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.
Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I'd love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don't see it.
I'm a "single issue voter" and that "single issue" is that I don't want another Trump presidency, so I'll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I'd much rather have someone else.
-
128 comments