Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.
I'm a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.
If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.
Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those..
STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.
So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.
In an RCV system, you'd rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
In a STAR system, you'd maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You're still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.
So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i
It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.
It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”
Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
Yep the same Kremlin propaganda operation that elected Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump also "supported" Bernie to help get Treason Trump elected.
Thanks Hillary. Oof.
Biden is fucking awesome! Love the guy!! So do all these people.
They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That's not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.
Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.
It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”
That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950's. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.
Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election
You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.
Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump's claim that he was robbed in 2020.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie's campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process." (From the wikipedia link below).
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign."
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”
We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making "inexcusable remarks" in private actually supports the claim that he was "heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged"?
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
The only "concrete" thing you cite is that "they said nasty things about him in private." No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.
Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying "nasty things about him in private".
It should also be noted that their actions "caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election". It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
Convenient you skip over the undermine
Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails "suggest" this, but doesn't actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.
But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.
And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.
It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
I'm challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.
And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him
Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.
Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.
It was literally the central theme of my initial post to you, and explicitly stated.
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:
From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.
Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.
America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.
Read more history if you disagree.
Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn't Sanders.
When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.
I don't really think I'm going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it's probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I'm speaking to anyone who might come after them.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but... the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for "fun nicknames" to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say "While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde".
But also? I know a few of the dumbest "Bernie or bust" morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.
It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn't be in the same mess we're in now.
So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?
Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?
Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.
So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences?
No. I made my argument was clear from the start, you even initially argued against my actual point, and I just restated here. And now you are dishonestly trying to spin the argument into something else.
I guess you realize that you've got nothing, which is why you are so desperate to make it about something else now.
Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.
It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.
Which one is your actual point?
I've now made it explicitly clear what my point is at least 3 times. And you're still trying to make the argument about something else. Amazing.
You can admit you might be wrong, my friend. I was too about this for a while. The important thing is to learn and grow.
You’ve claimed several points that conflict and when asked directly what your point is you talk around it.
My point was Bernie got cheated out of that primary election
Your point was that the primary was above board and there was no reason to question it
Then you later agreed that there was good reason to question it
And now your point is that your point is clear?
The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn't get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with. The moment ANY candidate was not exactly what they wanted they were going to throw a hissy and run away.
Because... they are not leftists or even left leaning. They are just spoiled children who decided they wanted something and are now mad they didn't get it. If they actually cared about politics or social issues, rather than what the hasans of the world say on stream, they would be angrily voting for Biden anyway.
The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn’t get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with.
The poster is claiming that the DNC rigged the election against Sanders, or at least were so unfair that it's fair to say he might have won otherwise. If people believe they are actually this corrupt, it will turn people off from the party. I've already stated that this is not about the dopes who have convinced themselves, with no evidence, that he actually got screwed. This is about stopping other people from falling for the lie.
Again, if they are dumb enough to believe that the DNC actively sabotaged the party because Reasons then they would otherwise be dumb enough to consider themselves "moderate" or "apolitical" under any other context.
At which point... it doesn't matter. Someone who is going to refuse to vote because 12 years ago jet fuel didn't melt steel beams or whatever are going to refuse to vote because "my vote doesn't matter" or "this candidate is too old" or whatever. And they are the kind of voters who are swayed by the strongman bullshit anyway.
Anyone who ACTUALLY cares about politics and social issues are going to vote along those lines. We won't like it but we will. And the rest? They are just as easily won over by one snazzy commercial before a pewdiepie video. And then they still won't bother to vote because they are angry that they were asked to pick a political party when they renewed their driver's license ten years ago.
All engaging the stupidity does is legitimize it.
Projection at its finest.
When you actually offer up something other than "they said nasty things about him!" then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.
Hey look, more liberals blatantly lying about how shit and corrupt their party is!
And you've provided. . .oh look! Nothing!
Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3
And to prove these lies you've provided ...oh look! Nothing!
Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3
A blatant lie was all you provided.
I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don't know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I'm certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.
My city does ranked choice voting, and it's great! I would love to see it at the state level.
That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it "instant run-off voting" and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.
Yup. Y’all had it for a while.
Ranked choice doesn't really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.
On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.
So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?
It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.
And... there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.
Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.
I'll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn't the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are "just strong enough to get concessions".
Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.
Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.
I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There's really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you'd like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.
None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous "wouldn't it be great if all the boomers died" which... no arguments.
Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the "side" that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.
I am ALL for election reform. But "it can't hurt" is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when... it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.
As for "the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people": You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.
Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.
How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
If we "can't say how it would affect the way people vote" then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval... you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS...)
And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are "condemning" his behavior. Whereas the left? We can't stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind "We all hate this demographic" rather than "Well, I want UBI" "No, I want health care" "Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy".
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than "Well, I'm bored. Let's redo everything because it might be better".
To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.
If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.
You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.
Yeah. This happens with basically every "political movement". You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can't even explain simple things like "how does this not just embolden spoilers" or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).
Let alone "Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused"
People just see "oh, it is different so it must be better" and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.
We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don't have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3
I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president
Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates
Brain Worm '24
Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I'm willing to be wrong. I'm not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.
Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by "ranked choice" (and most don't even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting...)
Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.
At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.
Which... is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but... we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.
You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren't throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they'd be labeled as spoilers.
Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.
I'm a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.
If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.
Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those..
STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.
So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.
So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i
It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.
It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”
Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
Yep the same Kremlin propaganda operation that elected Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump also "supported" Bernie to help get Treason Trump elected.
Thanks Hillary. Oof.
Biden is fucking awesome! Love the guy!! So do all these people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFCWvOQFJ-c
They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That's not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.
Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.
That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950's. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.
You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.
Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump's claim that he was robbed in 2020.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie's campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process." (From the wikipedia link below).
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign."
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making "inexcusable remarks" in private actually supports the claim that he was "heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged"?
The only "concrete" thing you cite is that "they said nasty things about him in private." No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.
Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying "nasty things about him in private".
It should also be noted that their actions "caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election". It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails "suggest" this, but doesn't actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.
And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.
I'm challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.
Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.
It was literally the central theme of my initial post to you, and explicitly stated.
From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.
Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.
America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.
Read more history if you disagree.
Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn't Sanders.
When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.
I don't really think I'm going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it's probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I'm speaking to anyone who might come after them.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but... the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for "fun nicknames" to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say "While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde".
But also? I know a few of the dumbest "Bernie or bust" morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.
It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn't be in the same mess we're in now.
So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?
Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?
Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.
No. I made my argument was clear from the start, you even initially argued against my actual point, and I just restated here. And now you are dishonestly trying to spin the argument into something else.
I guess you realize that you've got nothing, which is why you are so desperate to make it about something else now.
Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.
It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.
Which one is your actual point?
I've now made it explicitly clear what my point is at least 3 times. And you're still trying to make the argument about something else. Amazing.
You can admit you might be wrong, my friend. I was too about this for a while. The important thing is to learn and grow.
You’ve claimed several points that conflict and when asked directly what your point is you talk around it.
My point was Bernie got cheated out of that primary election
Your point was that the primary was above board and there was no reason to question it
Then you later agreed that there was good reason to question it
And now your point is that your point is clear?
The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn't get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with. The moment ANY candidate was not exactly what they wanted they were going to throw a hissy and run away.
Because... they are not leftists or even left leaning. They are just spoiled children who decided they wanted something and are now mad they didn't get it. If they actually cared about politics or social issues, rather than what the hasans of the world say on stream, they would be angrily voting for Biden anyway.
The poster is claiming that the DNC rigged the election against Sanders, or at least were so unfair that it's fair to say he might have won otherwise. If people believe they are actually this corrupt, it will turn people off from the party. I've already stated that this is not about the dopes who have convinced themselves, with no evidence, that he actually got screwed. This is about stopping other people from falling for the lie.
Again, if they are dumb enough to believe that the DNC actively sabotaged the party because Reasons then they would otherwise be dumb enough to consider themselves "moderate" or "apolitical" under any other context.
At which point... it doesn't matter. Someone who is going to refuse to vote because 12 years ago jet fuel didn't melt steel beams or whatever are going to refuse to vote because "my vote doesn't matter" or "this candidate is too old" or whatever. And they are the kind of voters who are swayed by the strongman bullshit anyway.
Anyone who ACTUALLY cares about politics and social issues are going to vote along those lines. We won't like it but we will. And the rest? They are just as easily won over by one snazzy commercial before a pewdiepie video. And then they still won't bother to vote because they are angry that they were asked to pick a political party when they renewed their driver's license ten years ago.
All engaging the stupidity does is legitimize it.
Projection at its finest.
When you actually offer up something other than "they said nasty things about him!" then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.
Hey look, more liberals blatantly lying about how shit and corrupt their party is!
And you've provided. . .oh look! Nothing!
Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3
And to prove these lies you've provided ...oh look! Nothing!
A blatant lie was all you provided.
I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don't know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I'm certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.
My city does ranked choice voting, and it's great! I would love to see it at the state level.
That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it "instant run-off voting" and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.
Yup. Y’all had it for a while.
Ranked choice doesn't really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.
On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.
So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?
It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.
And... there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.
Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.
I'll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn't the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are "just strong enough to get concessions".
Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.
Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.
I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There's really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you'd like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.
None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous "wouldn't it be great if all the boomers died" which... no arguments.
Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the "side" that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.
I am ALL for election reform. But "it can't hurt" is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when... it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.
As for "the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people": You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.
Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.
How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
If we "can't say how it would affect the way people vote" then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval... you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS...)
And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are "condemning" his behavior. Whereas the left? We can't stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind "We all hate this demographic" rather than "Well, I want UBI" "No, I want health care" "Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy".
Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than "Well, I'm bored. Let's redo everything because it might be better".
To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv
https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog
If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.
You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.
Yeah. This happens with basically every "political movement". You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can't even explain simple things like "how does this not just embolden spoilers" or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).
Let alone "Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused"
People just see "oh, it is different so it must be better" and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.
We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don't have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3
I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president
Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates
Brain Worm '24
Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I'm willing to be wrong. I'm not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.
Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by "ranked choice" (and most don't even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting...)
Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.
At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.
Which... is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but... we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.
You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren't throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they'd be labeled as spoilers.