Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I'm not going to throw away my vote or my delegate's vote.
Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we're at it?
Yes please. As someone who isn't in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
Also, prisoners should get a vote.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.
A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don't exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that's pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.
Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don't get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don't realize they are part of the U.S.
Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.
So PR is a colony
Isn't ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You'd have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?
Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.
Doesn’t the constitution explicitly grant states the right to decide how they hold their elections?
The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn't even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state's presidential electors are appointed. That didn't stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren't allowed to decide how to run their state's elections.
Now, you'd think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don't pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who's going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don't know yet!
add ranked choice
Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I'm not going to throw away my vote or my delegate's vote.
Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we're at it?
Yes please. As someone who isn't in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
Also, prisoners should get a vote.
I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.
A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don't exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that's pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.
Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don't get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don't realize they are part of the U.S.
Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.
So PR is a colony
Isn't ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You'd have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?
Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.
Doesn’t the constitution explicitly grant states the right to decide how they hold their elections?
The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn't even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state's presidential electors are appointed. That didn't stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren't allowed to decide how to run their state's elections.
Now, you'd think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don't pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who's going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don't know yet!