Yeah, I agree with them. Ranked Choice voting is extremely confusing. First you have to rank the candidates in the order you prefer to win, then…oh wait, no. It’s really not confusing at all.
But these poor black people can’t count to five!
How fucking patronizing.
As a citizen of a country with ranked choice voting the hardest thing is choosing which of the loonies you want to put last!
Is it patronizong if it’s backed by data? The article discusses how they’re not just claiming it’s confusing for these districts out of nothing, they’re pointing to existing voting data that shows when there are multiple seats to fill for the same position, such as City Council seats, voters in these districts neglect to cast votes for the additional seats at a higher rate than other districts. “Undervoting” it’s apparently called.
This is a horrifically self-serving bullshit “solution” to this problem, but there does appear to be a real problem that ought to be addressed as part of a ranked-choice rollout.
Sounds like there just needs to be a little bit of voter education rather than scrapping the whole thing.
Republicans would rather commit mass genocide than educate voters.
True, but in this case, it’s Democrats who are the problem.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree. What I was trying to get at is that educating voters will never happen so long as Republicans exist. They would rather cull the educated than create more of them.
Apparently Democrats would rather perl clutch their way through genocide, than educated voters
At the same time, “to be able to vote you should have to pass a civics test.”
I would need to see the ballot to say for sure, but the article lists this example:
“The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.””
So, when presented with a relatively simple “Vote For Two” choice, Ward 7 and 8 are less likely to vote for a second person.
If that’s a problem, then the idea of not only voting for multiple people, but ranking them 1-2-3, may be a big issue.
Remember, back in 2000 Florida voters struggled with the butterfly ballot.
But in the end, this could be solved by a combination of education, clear instructions, and an easy to understand ballot design.
But undervoting isn’t really a problem. No one is being disenfranchised by not casting a second vote (or ranking all options), they just aren’t availing themselves of the full range of options. Even just voting for one person could be an intentional choice if you don’t really care about the other options or want your first choice to have a better chance of winning an expected head-to-head.
This is at worst an indicator the government should run some informational campaigns, not a reason not to use multi-voting systems.
If it’s intentional by the voter it’s not a problem.
If it’s because the ballots are confusing, or the process is, it isn’t fine. They’re being partially disenfranchised- their ballot will have less power than someone who understood the process.
We have RCV in NY for primaries. Understanding the implications of how the order matters and gets counted isn’t super easy. There are definitely going to be unintended consequences for RCV.
It’s not really any more disenfranchising than FPTP. While RCV has tactical voting issues, so does FPTP, and in most cases someone who doesn’t understand the system is just going to vote for someone they perceive to have a chance of winning, which is very likely to be in the final two candidates. And if they’re instead the type to vote for a minor candidate, their vote would have just been meaningless in FPTP anyway.
All the trivia about the very rare cases where tactical voting matters in RCV is just that, trivia. No one really needs to try to game theory their vote out, because in most cases it just doesn’t matter and RCV just gives some people the ability to first declare who they actually want before sending their vote to the preferred major candidate. And in the end, people who can’t figure out basic voting instructions simply aren’t thinking about their vote that deeply. We’re lucky if they’ve even familiarized themselves with all the candidates.
It’s really hard for any system to be worse than FPTP. The people spreading FUD about RCV are mostly doing it because the flaws in FPTP benefit them.
It’s hard for a system to be worse than FPTP.
The problem is that RCV isn’t that big of an improvement on it.
For one thing, its voter satisfaction efficiency isn’t great.
For another thing, in most FPTP elections, things like the spoiler effect are mere trivia, as well. The last time I voted, nearly all the races had at most two candidates and a few local ones even only had one candidate. I’m not a fan of FPTP because it leads to elections like that and handles elections with many viable candidates badly. However, it’s in precisely the kind of elections I care about that RCV’s flaws go from mere trivia to being far more likely.
A good voting system shouldn’t need a crutch like primaries to have a high quality result. You should be able to have an election between all the 2016 presidential primary candidates without the chance of weird non-monotonic behavior being unacceptably high.
It does because their vote is potentially worth less than someone who does understand.
That’s less of an issue in FPTP except for the undervoting issue called out in the post when you have to vote for multiple candidates.
Anyone who votes for a third party candidate gets no value from their vote in FPTP. They have effectively no impact on the outcome at all. This is no worse than that and not in any way a reason not to implement RCV.
And again, this is the slimmest of edge cases for a sliver of voters. Most voters will easily adapt to the system (particularly if any effort at all is made to educate them) and even those that don’t will very rarely lose their vote due to not ranking lower candidates. And those voters that would are already throwing away their vote without impacting the result in FPTP. That this is a real issue that should block RCV implementation because it’s in the interest of voting fairness is A LIE.
What about the disenfranchised caused by first past the post? It’s arguably more representative even if some are partially disenfranchised.
Depends on the system. In Australia undervoting can invalidate your vote.
So just don’t make it that way.
but then we won’t be like australia
deleted by creator
I’d be interested to see the instructions on those ballots that had this problem. Since states are in charge of their own voting systems we can’t really have a standardized system, but I’m sure the clarity can be improved.
I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, “Oh no, I’m allowed to vote for TWO people?” and immediately bolting out the door.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/s5rtV8nDScc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s a design and execution problem, not a voter problem. The Florida ballots had a stupid design that met the needs of a counting machine, not the needs of voters
Pretty sure it was less about the machine snd more about intentionally confusing older voters to pull votes from Gore and add them to Buchanan…
Maybe the second candidate was s*** and nobody wanted to vote for them? Or maybe voters really only wanted the one person.
Or, and I think this is more likely, people are used to the idea of marking more than one name invalidating the ballot.
You think that’s more likely huh? But somehow only in those two heavily minority districts? What are you basing that on?
I don’t think it’s just in those minority districts. The article states that it’s WORSE in those districts, that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem elsewhere.
Maybe they need to put “Vote for Two” in bold or a bigger font or something. Like I said at the top, it’s hard to tell without seeing the ballot design.
No, it’s only confusing for people in predominantly black areas! Wait… this statement seems problematic…
Quick grab your kente cloth and kneel to make it all better!
Undervoting is a real issue.
deleted by creator
they always have, if we’re honest. Corpo Dems think the working class needs shepherding. they like to pretend they’re benevolent while their benefactors fuck us slowly. They’re benevolence is only incomparison to the party of “Saying the Quiet Part out Loud”.
No, this isn’t a both-sides argument. This is a “just because one side is objectively worse doesn’t mean the Corpo Dems don’t also really suck.” argument.
Liberals have always and will always be the natural enemy of the Left and the working class. That’s been true for almost 400 years and it isn’t changing now.
Right wing stooge says what?
If you don’t know the difference between leftist and liberal you should probably crack open wikipedia before you try to crack a witty retort.
“Leftists” as you like to call them don’t exist in the US. Leftists in the US are Democrats aka neolibs. Literally the left wing of Congress. The leftists you’re thinking of are a rounding error, they effectively don’t exist.
But in any case what few leftists there are in the US are working with the neolibs against the regressive neocon fascist bastards trying to take over our country. Fascists are the natural enemy of the working class, and anyone with a brain. Picking libs over fascists is such an obvious take anyone arguing differently is a moron or a boot licker.
Leftists definitely exist in the states. We just don’t have a political party whose candidates we can reasonably vote for.
Source: am leftist; am also American
Removed by mod
Corpos are all Center Right. Not a single Liberal among them.
Liberals are by definition pro corporations.
false.
adjective
adjective: liberal; adjective: Liberal1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. h Similar: progressiveforward-looking
forward-thinking
progressivist
go-ahead
enlightened
reformist
radical
freethinking
left-wing
leftist
politically correct
PC
woke
right-on
h
Opposite:
conservativereactionary Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
noun
noun: liberal; plural noun: liberals; noun: Liberal; plural noun: Liberals1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals" 2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Typical gaslighting liberal nonsense. Keep trying to tell us that corporations don’t come first to the Democrats. It’s blatant bullshit and every ordinary person knows it.
Ah, so you don’t understand that the additional words are there because they are entirely different terms. Cool, cool.
Hint: when you are called an Ass as opposed to when you are called a Dumb Ass, it is referring to different behaviors of yours.
They didn’t even mention anyone not being able to vote because of race. They mentioned in court that certain areas that happen to have older voters, poorer voters, and black voters could be potentially undermined by ranked choice. And it’s proven to be true. As shown in previous elections time and time again. It is called undervoting.
See:
None of these commenters read the fucking article. You read the headlines and then jump straight to the hot takes, to spew about unrelated agendas.
The Democratic Party officials in DC are like 90% black.
Here are literally the actual people who made the argument in court. You. can see their pictures:
https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton
Just to be clear: I’m for ranked choice. Their concern is not racist. And saying it is in this case means you didn’t read the article.
Here’s Charles Wilson - The leader of the DC democrats, who personally argued in court, as mentioned in the article you all didn’t read:
All I had to do was read the article to not come to the same conclusion as half the people in this thread. Community fail. This thread proves some people can’t be bothered to read. And that’s what the argument made in court was about - confusion.
You didn’t read the article. I did. You also apparently didn’t read the TLDR bullet points. I did. Let me get the excerpts for you:
They argued in a lawsuit that low-income and Black voters would be confused by the system.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to block ranked choice voting in Washington, DC, the local Democratic Party argued that implementing the system would be particularly confusing for voters in predominantly Black areas.
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.” “Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office,” said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting “would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate.” // “I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities,” Wilson added.
They’re explicitly saying these minorities are more likely to be confused.
About your point about “they can’t be racist because they’re black”… yes they absolutely fucking can. There is zero need to call on race here. “Our constituents report confusion leading to under voting” is all that needed to be said. Tying it to race is…. Racist. Tying it to age is ageist.
What if you read it as
Undervoting is a problem that, due to socio-economic issues, disproportionately affects people of color
So they’re actively trying to prevent black people from being disenfranchised (if undervoting counts as such).
However, using this as an argument to oppose ranked choice voting, instead of informing the voters better, is definitely wrong.
You can read anything any way you want if you literally rewrite like you just did. That’s a straight up Trump-style move.
They don’t care about disenfranchising anyone and you damn well know it. This is solely about Democrats worrying about competing against independent progressives in DC elections where they stand a very real chance of losing power if the voting system stops favoring them.
They are progressive black local leaders representing their community. Not racists. Not “corpo dems” haha.
And they are saying minorities, the elderly, and the poor are more likely to be undermined because of lack of resources to be made aware of said changes. They did it last year, and many people in those districts didn’t make a second vote. Which means their vote counted less than others.
Under voting isn’t a theory. It’s something that’s demonstrably occurred in these specific districts. They can see how people vote and notice that it is happening.
Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.
The local dem chapters in these types of districts aren’t Hilary Clinton, bro. They’re the opposite.
Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF.
There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.
Just to be clear: I am generally for ranked choice. And I’m generally for calling out corporate dems. But I’m not cool with disingenuousness, even/especially from people I otherwise stand in agreement with on issues in general.
Calling these particular people racists is exactly what Trumpers would do. Btw. Same shitty playbook.
Lmao. DC Dems are 100% corporate. You act like someone can’t be black and a corporate shill at the same time, which of course is racist.
This is solely about suppressing competition from independents and third party candidates. They’ll use any argument they can to maintain the monopoly on power they have in DC. You’re falling for it.
Because you say so. And these black people who live in these districts are racist against themselves too. Sure, buddy. Quite apt.
People who use words like shill whenever they have nothing else to say are funny. You probably believe in pizzagate.
Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.
except that they didn’t need to tie it to race at all. you’re right. they have polling data. “These wards were severely undervoting in the last election because of a lack of awareness; ranked choice disenfranchises our constituents” is really all that needed to be said. Unless you think race is actually the contributing factor and not - just here me out here- adequate resrouces spent on awareness campaigns in those wards prior to the vote and in the polling stations day of.
But awareness campaigns and extra pollworkers to make things go smoothly… don’t help keep status quo with democrats and republicans sharing power by agreement because ranked choice (among other reforms,) absolutely would weaken their power. as out outsider looking in and only knowing this… they really don’t seem all that progressive, here.
Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF. There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.
You’re missing my point. People who tend to miss points tend to be… well just read you’re own quote back.I do appologize for the assumptions. being anti-rank-choice tends to be a corpo-dem position; not a progressive one. Because it makes… you know… progressives… easier to elect. (more broadly, 3rd party.)
once again. the point is there’s zero need at all to tie this to racism, which they very much did. IMO, “its confusing” is not a valid argument for not doing something new. people can learn and get through it- particularly with help. “its confusing” is a very good argument for taking steps to clear up the confusion. which of these two options do you think supports their constituents better?
White Savior says what?
Doubt they care. They do anything to uphold a two party system where they can raise campaign contributions from the same corporate interests that also contribute to radical regressives, while at the same time being able to hold some offices solely by being the marginally less shitty party (at least publicly). Ranked choice makes a third party a viable option and the Democrats as a political party with no real stances doesn’t make sense in the world where they aren’t the sole alternative.
Absurdist philosophy helps me. Worth a try.
deleted by creator
Absurdism is Nihilism with a joke ;)
It means nothing, but it’s ridiculous.
deleted by creator
Praise Bob!
That’s the argument they’re trying for in court, which is not the same as what they think. The reality is much more mundane. Probably more frustrating too.
Ranked choice voting makes it easier for incumbents to lose. It makes it harder (but still… not actually difficult) for retiring office holder to coronate their hand-picked successor. That’s all this comes down to. Especially in a place like DC that votes for a single party by such wide margins. Places that lopsided, in a FPTP primary system, once elected a politician is all but incapable of losing. Even to horrible, horrible scandal.
Ranked choice threatens that. If DC switched to it overnight, >90% of the incumbents would win reelection trivially. In fact I’d be surprised if any of them that ran again lost. But they don’t like that it goes from just short of a guarantee, to still really highly certain.
deleted by creator
…PS5?
deleted by creator
Sorry buddy. We can’t trust you with that sort of responsibility. /s
No, they think we’re too complacent to fight them, and too stupid to know they are lying.
This is about protecting establishment career politicians, not about what voters want and not about what they are capable of understanding.
Estblishment corporate dems 🤝 All elected republicans:
Disenfranchising the American people in the name of job security.
“The Center-Right party, one of the two dominant parties in a two-party system, claims that a voting system allowing multiple parties to emerge is bad. The other dominant party, the Far-Right party, agrees.”
Surely centrist neolibs and the far right would never collaborate to prevent leftist candidates from being able to have a chance at getting elected… That never has happened before /s
BeRnIe iS tOO exTreMe!
Yep, nailed it.
Damnit democrats all I want from you is voting reform and then we can move onto better parties.
Although I guess this is them realizing that and not wanting to let go.
That’s a bingo. They will never give up power willingly.
Demsocs in the corner: Nooo they’ll give up power when the will of the people is clear! They promised they love democracy!
Removed by mod
I miss r/neoliberal
DNC loves calling poor people too stupid to help themselves. Insane that they don’t get called out more on this.
Republicans have the military industrial complex.
Democrats have the poverty industrial complex.
What?
For profit prisons, and tough on crime policies are two massive contributors to poverty.
Not to mention centuries of racial oppression.
Not defending the DNC, but come on…
Private prisons are 8% of federal prisons. Police unions do more lobbying and damage.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-biden-senate-record-controversies-20190318-story.html
Biden is and always has been a Wall Street democrat. The 1994 crine bill, championed by JB, is a significant reason the prision industrial complex has thrived for 30 years.
Bidens voting record is pretty shameful. Any time I say this though some dem hard liner will crawl up out of some sewer or drop in from the sky and internet fite me.
I can vote blue as a matter of preservation and still be critical of democrats. The “but someone might hear you” people can go fuck right off.
apparently poor people are to stupid to know they are being talked about that way.
“Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.”
Why would only Black Neighborhoods be confused by this? Elaborate… No go ahead, be my guest, you brought it up, now tell me.
Because they might vote for an outsider candidate, and they might win.
Because “condescending white savior” is a key Democratic party platform and has been for decades
Ah yes, people so “tolerant” that you’d rather they just call a slur.
Funniest moment was Biden patting himself on the back for all he was doing to help the black community by banning menthols
Glad he didn’t go through with that, if black people want to stop smoking menthols… they’ll resort to this handy onestep process
Step 1. Do not buy or smoke menthols
Imagine that, letting human beings make their own choices
Goddamnit democrats. This is some republican shit.
I’ll be the last person to say that both sides same bullshit, but Democrats are still politicians. They seek positions of influence and power, and they need public support to do it. There’s a certain type of person who thrives in that environment, and they are absolutely the last type of person you want in leadership roles.
Anyone who is currently in power will oppose ranked choice voting because it breaks up the monolithic power structure that so many powerful people use as leverage. It reduces the effectiveness of wedge issues, which means leaders will actually have to present nuanced opinions on many topics. It decreases extremism, which means their opponents will likely be closer ideologically to themselves, all of which is better for the voters and worse for the politicians.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged. It makes the rational choice incredibly easy. Ranked choice will break up both parties into smaller categories, killing the demon they would rather be fighting.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged
I feel like it’s important to point out right now that this was literally Hillary’s strategy in 2016. Google “HRC Pied Piper”, we have the email where she told the DNC to help boost the campaigns of the crazier republicans like Trump. The theory was that he would be too crazy for the general election. The fact was she vastly underestimated the triumvirate powers of voter apathy, right wing populist rhetoric and the average person’s disdain for her personally and was halfway through her victory lap in Texas when she realized that she actually lost.
So yeah, if you were one of the people harmed by the hateful rhetoric and incompetent policymaking of the Trump administration he’s absolutely at fault, but it’s important to remember that the DNC was willing to gamble with your safety and stability in order to maintain power. They’re aristocrats first, then they choose what flavor of aristocrat to be.
Hillary is as responsible for the Trump administration as anyone.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged. It makes the rational choice incredibly easy.
This dynamic frightens me so much.
Which is exactly where the “both sides” arguments come from. Sure, the Democrats aren’t openly pushing the country towards fascism, but they also aren’t interested in real change that would fix some of the fundamental problems, like with the electoral system. They’d rather be the one rational choice in a system that enables the Republicans and all of the risks that go along with that than support a system that would have a better chance at making real progress.
Politics 101 - if you ever follow through on a campaign promise, then you can’t campaign on it in the next election. So over promise, under deliver, and find a scapegoat to blame for your inability to get anything done.
Democrats can absolutely act in facist ways. The willingness to not call facistic actions facism just because historically Republicans have acted that way is wild. People can’t be this stupid.
Did you miss the actual fascist coup attempt 2½ years ago?
…no? Is that extreme attempt we all saw your only understanding of facism??
I’m just saying this isn’t a good time for calling someone “fascist” metaphorically to make a point.
We have an actual, for-serious, fascist party in control of parts of the country. They were barely prevented from ending democracy entirely just a few years ago, and they haven’t yet been ejected entirely from the republic.
They may not be the same but they’re both racist as fuck. Republicans see POCs as animals and Democrats see them as children.
deleted by creator
I could eat
They talk about buying dinner, then stiff us with the check afterwards
Like they’re different? At least Republicans who are racist are honest about their racism. Democrats who are racist just like to pretend they’re racist for the good of the minorities they’re racist against. "Poor black people, they won’t understand how to list their 3 favorite candidates in order, we can’t possibly make this change.
Do people honestly think democrats WANT any changes to happen? They’re elites in power. They’re going to hold onto that power as long as they can.
You almost got it…
Got what? Both sides are the same? Let me check the list:
Democrat Republican Don’t want ranked voting Don’t want ranked voting Want everybody to have a puppy dog Want to kill every puppy dog Nah, still not the same. It just sucks you are stuck with two parties that don’t completely oppose each other on all policy points.
It just sucks you are stuck with two parties that don’t completely oppose each other on all policy points.
Republicans opposing Democrats on all points is how we got into this mess, blame Newt Gingrich
Always someone to blame as well. My point wasn’t that the 2 party system should totally oppose one another. It is that there are just 2 parties to choose from at all.
deleted by creator
I wanted to keep it light-hearted as it is the meme and all that… But, you want me to mention their actual points? To be fair and balanced?
You wanted me to mention the control over women’s bodies, abortions for me but not for thee?
Or maybe the supporting killing children in schools by only granting thought and prayers whenever a tragedy strikes AGAIN? You know the EU pretty much stopped reporting all the shooting incidents in the states as it is no longer newsworthy? It is only through America-centric Lemmy communities that I hear about most shootings.
Or perhaps the red-scare levels of fearmongering about insert minority that is easily targeted of this season?
This is what I see republicans be through their actions.
deleted by creator
using racist dog whistles to protect shit policies for the entrenched benefactors of said shit policies.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
The system will fight to prevent systemic changes that weaken the system.
Is it just me or is this statement blatantly racist? Black people are too stupid and so we must limit the way they vote? Where did I hear that before? The democratic party knows they’ll lose power if they implemented, but to stoop that low…
From the article:
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.”
“Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office,” said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting “would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate.”
They aren’t saying black people can’t figure it out, they’re reporting that voters in predominantly black areas haven’t. It’s not a statement of belief, it’s a statement of fact. Now, the solution should be to provide resources to educate them on how the new system works, not to abandon it. That would take effort though, and wouldn’t work to maintain the status quo.
This seems like a problem that would be very easily remedied by volunteers working the polls. Regardless of statement of fact, its a disingenuous argument by those citing this excuse.
If only there was another country or something that already used ranked choice voting that could help implementation.
Also, undervoting will always be a thing. Most people will never have the resources to know what every candidate is about given its almost impossible now with usually only two candidates for each race. As long as everyone cast a vote it’s still better then the trash we have now.
There are already nonprofits that summarize what each candidate stands for. At least in my area, it would be a matter of having a leaflet or guiding a people to a qt code.
Is it really feasible, or fair, to relegate this population’s education on a new voting system to the good will of volunteers on voting day? I’m gonna go with no.
A change like this should come with a huge education campaign attached. The entire constituency should have an actual opportunity to understand the new system well before voting day. Otherwise, intentionally or not, you are suppressing the vote of under-educated populations.
I think ranked-choice should be ushered in ASAP, but pretending concerns like this are unwarranted or disingenuous comes across as short-sighted to me. The problem is valid, even if it’s presented in bad faith (which, frankly, I don’t believe it is in bad faith).
All a poll worker has to do is tell the voter to rank his preffered candidates from one to x, I’ve had more complicated questions than that while voting. You don’t have to give people a political science lecture.
Ballots are never so simple, and if you’ve ever played a part in designing something to be “common-sense” you’ll understand there’s no such thing at a certain point.
My concern is for those that will not receive the proper information, and for the undue burden on volunteers that already commit a lot of effort. Leaving this to be solved at to moment of voting feels like asking for issues. I think we should be more proactive than that.
Is it really feasible, or fair, to relegate this population’s education on a new voting system to the good will of volunteers on voting day? I’m gonna go with no.
Who else should educate them on the topic? Politicians?
And if there is no one, then that would mean you guys won’t be able to move away from the current undemocratic fucked up system. Which is even more stupid.
Volunteers, groups that already expend effort to educate populations on voting, fucking pamphlets. There are plenty of ways to spread information somewhat reliably. I’m not even saying to avoid implementing rank-choice. I think it would be a net benefit, but I also think concerns over education on the new system are valid. Implementing something like this improperly opens the door to the entire concept being poisoned for the rest of the public, and we should be talking about how a lack of knowledge regarding the new system can inadvertently suppress voters.
Fuck off its done else where in the world without issue and maybe we could finally vote for people who value education and individuality so less educated voters could get support, they cherry picked a quote to make a racist statement and keep their power. Fuck off with your racist and corporate apologist attitude, honestly.
I’m not against rank-choice, I prefer it. I’m just not so short-sighted as to miss how dumping such a change on a population without proper education accompanying it can backfire and poison the idea for some time. Nor am I so reactionary as to call a legitimate concern racist, merely because it involves a minority group. I’m not saying this a failure of the population, I’m saying the population has been failed and we need to compensate for this if this is going to be implemented properly.
It’s the “noble savage”/“white savior” trope again. People really think they’re fighting racism by implying minorities can’t make their own decision.
In not criticizing allies, to be clear. I’m criticizing people who aren’t comfortable having personal relationships with minorities, and abuse progressivism to make themselves feel like they aren’t part of the problem.
https://www.dcdemocraticparty.org/whoweare
Charles Wilson isn’t white.
Just another black white supremacist.
And so are some of the gop, that doesn’t change who he is yielding power to ffs…
He’s retaining power for himself and other party insiders, by opposing a system that makes parties a bit less powerful?
The dude who said it is himself black.
Either he’s a self-hating black person, thinks it’s too complex for anyone, or more likely he’s being disingenuous because he thinks this is bad for the party.
Probably more of the latter.
This is the same, tired argument Sarah Palin and other Republicans made here in Alaska when it didn’t go their way. How stupid do you think voters are? If they’re that easily confused, maybe do a better job at educating them, in say, a classroom when they’re young. Maybe bring back Civics classes.
Then they couldn’t push blue-no-matter-who. The threat of the republic party is their primary means of staying elected. They can’t give us more options. It’s be against their interests.
if after *points to literally fucking everything we can’t get done, and are losing ground on" everything, you’re STILL not “blue-no-matter-who” you’re in league with the fascists, and garbage.
That’s… that’s literally what they’re talking about. That, because we are forced to decide between two major parties, we have to “vote blue no matter who” in order to not get the worst possible deal.
That doesn’t mean that Democrats are universally the good guys, it just means they’re better than the worst possible option.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have another option.
I think you are sort of missing the point. Currently Blue no matter what is sadly the best choice right now. Its clear we are seeing that democrats are 100% willing to screw over others to get theirs as well seeing as they are trying to block ranked choice voting, which is a net good thing. Its just straight up first past the post+ (FPTP+).
Edit: This isn’t to advocate against democrats at the current moment because clearly Republicans are just worse in almost every fucking way but we need to be vigilant and its clear we need to fight for Alternative vote/Ranked Choice Voting since the other poster is right, right now Democrats are relying heavily on you have no fucking option besides us. So sit down and shut up and we will give you crumbs rather than the Republicans just shitting in your mouth calling it chocolate.
When the alternative is “cut taxes, hurt people and burn it all down”, blue isn’t a great choice, but it currently is the only one.
Fuck yeah
This was a novel argument in 2016, by now we’re all wise to the “don’t vote, surely that will make things better” propaganda
Guess I’m fash for wanting more than what dems will deliver. Like healthcare, student debt relief, free higher education, unions… holy shit, I just realized I’m a fascist fuck. /s
You can SAY whatever you want, but at the end of the day if you don’t vote Democrat then yes you’re a fascist and/or a moron.
How stupid do you think voters are?
Extremely.
To be fair for about half the population they’re kinda right.
I mean they are but they aren’t. They are doing this because it only benefits them to deny ranked choice voting. There is literally no negative to it beyond it being only slightly better than FPTP, which we have been stuck with for centuries.
Note: Splitting the vote and the spoiler effect are stupid problems of FPTP and we shouldn’t have to deal with them.
Most of the arguments Republicans made after that election were bad.
But that election was genuinely an example of a number of the unfortunate pathological edgecases in ranked choice.
In particular, it failed a number of the mathematical fairness criteria that people have come up with over the years to compare voting systems. Much of it stems from the failure to elect the Condorcet winner, Begich. Basically, Begich could have beaten either Peltola or Palin in a head-to-head election, but he had fewer first place votes than either so he was eliminated first and Peltola beat Palin in the last round.
So first, it failed ‘favorite betrayal’ - Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich. It failed participation: if a bunch of Palin voters stayed home, Begich would have won and they’d be better off. It failed monotonicity: Palin voters could have defeated Peltola by voting for her. Obviously, it failed independence of irrelevant alternatives; Palin acted as a spoiler candidate to Begich.
All of which isn’t an argument for regular party primaries + plurality, which is theoretically much worse. But it’s the example advocates of alternative systems like approval or STAR will reach for for a while, just like Burlington used to be.
That doesn’t sound like a failure to me, unless you wanted a Republican representative. And saying “if more people had voted for Palin she would have won” is pretty laughable. All Republicans had to do was vote Palin 1st, Begich 2nd (or vice versa) and they would have then had their pick in the next round, but Palin was such an awful candidate, Begich’s supporters would rather see Peltola over her (as they should), and Palin’s supporters seemingly didn’t vote for Begich either. No matter how you slice it, the Republicans screwed themselves, and I am here for it.
Failures shouldn’t be judged by a standard of “this worked in my favor this time so it’s good”.
This time, it benefitted Democrats. Next time, with a different set of candidates, it could elect someone alt-right when most voters preferred an establishment Democrat.
And Palin definitely shouldn’t have won. Most other voting systems would have elected Begich.
The problem is that IRV genuinely has a lot of weird behavior because the results are so tied to elimination order. You can actually see that visually in a kind of election visualizion called a Yee diagram, where you put candidates on a political compass and color the regions that they’d win if the center of opinion is in that region. Most systems produce sensible diagrams, IRV often produces bonkers ones.
Oh no, poor people are too dumb to know that the only right choice is the corporate democrat! They might want people who represent their interest and not just some guy who will uphold the status quo!
The more I think about it this is a brilliant strategy for democrats to establish ranked choice nationally. Nothing gets a republican harder then something the democrats don’t want. And if I’ve learned anything if conservatives want something it is all but inevitable.
Unfortunately the Republicans agree with them on this point
Reverse psychology….bold
“Someone could get the most votes, and not win!” McCarthy said at the time… “So if you come in 3rd, you win. What? ‘I got a lot of second votes, I got a lot of 3rd vote — what does that mean?’”
I don’t think it’s the “Black areas” that are getting confused about how it works. Or perhaps he’s just pretending to not understand? 🤔🤔
His heart is black
If the dems actually cared about the voters, their primaries wouldnt be rigged.
lmao ok sure
We wanted Bernie. We got a Clinton.
The DAY after he won those primaries EVERY media outlet had the same anti-communism anti-socialism anti Bearnie message read by a talking head at least 6 times each.
I was not a Bearnie voter, but damn that scared the fuck out of me. It truly showed how lost the democracy was.
we wanted Bernie again, and we got biden.
YOU wanted Bernie, you and your little bubble of like minded people.
MORE PEOPLE wanted Clinton. And Biden. They’re centrists for a reason.
You were outvoted. Stop with your conspiracy theory bullshit.
The polling place where I was during Bernie’s first primary was turning away people with provisional ballots, telling them they weren’t allowed to vote with those in a primary. They were allowed, it was just that the vast majority of provisional ballot holders were Bernie voters who were voting for the first time because there was finally someone they felt excited to vote for.
I raised a fuss and Karened my way to getting the director on the phone and demanded that she tell the supervisors that they needed to allow the voters to vote. I said that this was a huge problem and had obviously been happening all day. She said “Were you there all day to see it? No? Then there is nothing you can do about it!”
Also there is the part where the DNC’s defense in court (when they were sued for taking donations from Bernie supporters who believed they were unbiased) was “We were so obviously biased that anyone who didn’t notice was not paying attention, we gave no illusion of fairness. Also, the rule that says we have to be unbiased is our own rule, not a law and we can break our own rules if we want to!” And they won.
Party primaries are under no legal obligation to be fair and thr DNC are pretty open about changing policies to rig the outcomes of their primaries.
Don’t patronize your own voters. Not a good idea.
How else are establishment Democrats gonna stay in power? They’re afraid they’re going to lose to progressive candidates. Voters are going to vote more confidently in the candidates they believe in rather than the ones they believe will win. In rank voting there’s less fear that the worst candidate will win since it’s not a 1 or the other anymore.
That’s a bit backwards.
Instant runoff voting makes it so ranking a second choice can’t hurt your first choice. But voting honestly for your first choice instead of e.g. staying home could cause your second choice to lose and your last choice to win.
That happened in the recent Alaskan election. If a bunch of Palin voters stayed home, they’d have gotten Begich. Instead, Palin voters single-handedly elected Democrat by voting honestly.
That’s their point though. The current winners know they wouldn’t be the first choice if we had a system that allowed honest voting. It might save them against republicans, but it gives progressives even more of a chance.
EDIT: Also sure, if Palin voters would’ve voted strategically their side might’ve won. I’m not sure if it’s because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would’ve been safer as it’d allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don’t think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn’t even want to do as their second choice.
EDIT: Also Palin voters staying home wouldn’t have helped. Peltola was already at 128K votes (48.8%) with Begich at 61K. Palin voters staying home would’ve meant that Peltola would’ve won in round 1, as Begich would’ve had a higher percentage but Peltola would’ve been boosted up to ~67%.
There were actually 2 elections here.
The special election in September held because of Don Youngs death, and a general election in November.
In the special election, Peltola started out with 74,817 votes, 39.7% of the total. Begich had 52,536.
If 5,804 people who voted Palin 1st Begich 2nd stayed home, Palin would have been eliminated. Begich would have gotten a bit under 28k more votes and Peltola would have gotten about 3.5k more votes. That puts Begich at about 80k, and Peltola at about 78k.
My point is that ranked choice is not a system that allows honest voting. Much as in plurality, voters vote honestly at their own risk.
There are systems that do, and also systems that make better tradeoffs balancing later-no-harm against favorite betrayal.
I get what you mean now, but I think it’s significant that many Begich voters didn’t want Palin if they’d rather the other side win. Or not ranking anyone at all, which might be an issue of R messaging or unwillingness to support a different candidate.
Palin was also the incumbent, which means people will be likely to vote for them. I don’t see that being avoided unless she would’ve dropped out and endorsed Begich but it sounds like they weren’t on good terms.
Yes different ranking systems could be better (though it is nuanced), but it’s still a massive step up from FPtP.
Also Palin voters staying home wouldn’t have helped.EDIT: More correct point added aboveMost other voting systems would actually have elected Begich.
He was the Condorcet winner; voters preferred him over Palin and voters preferred him over Peltola.
That’s a stretch, and you’re likely assuming that all Palin voters would vote for Begich. Again Peltola already had 48.8% in round 1 and wasn’t the incumbent.
I also don’t think weaker wide appeal (beyond majority) is the best way, as that seems like a potential race to a position-less (or simply inoffensive but ineffective) candidate. Though in this case it seems close, at least if it’s red vs blue moderates.
Also sure, if Palin voters would’ve voted strategically their side might’ve won. I’m not sure if it’s because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would’ve been safer as it’d allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don’t think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn’t even want to do as their second choice.
Nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.
That said, “because we might lose” is not a good reason to not make the system better.
That said, “because we might lose” is not a good reason to not make the system better.
Establishment Democrats aren’t refusing to make the system better because Democrats in general might lose; they’re refusing because each of them individually is worried he might lose to a more progressive or leftist challenger. It’s blatant power-hungry selfishness.
I agree in principle with what you’re saying, but there is an “establishment” that also has a vested interest in the politicians they own remaining in power. That establishment sees itself as the Democratic Party, so they would disagree with you.
Either way, the point stands. If you are afraid of letting voters vote because you won’t like the results, then you’re not really promoting democracy at all.
Establishment Dems cutting their face to spite their nose. Everyone knows ranked choice means more Dem support than Repub, but also opens up 3rd party influence.
This shit is why the rest of the developed world says the US has two right wing parties.
Or what, you’ll vote 3rd party? Good luck with that. /s
Maybe they know their Base rather well.
This is the same Base that election after election after election needs to be reminded to keep their ID’s up to date as if that was some kind of new rule all of a sudden.
And they need to be reminded all the time that Republicans will try to trick them by making fake calls about polling places being closed or moved.
.jpeg){kind=link}