Other politicians: 'Okay that's enough RCV for America'
Well Oregon also voted down RCV statewide because it's just too confusing lol
The UK did this about a decade ago by a 2-to-1 margin, on the same grounds. Commentators in Australia (which have had ranked choice voting for generations) quipped that this was final proof that Australians are smarter than Brits.
Our legislature passed RCV here in CA and our Dem governor vetoed it. Can't be electing progressives over more big money neoliberal Dems, gotta keep that voting power bloc intact
This type of shit is exactly why Trump got reelected. The party is run by a bunch of charlatans.
They're good at representing their constituents all right. Sadly their only constituents are people donating to their campaigns.
Did Newsom take a rightward lean once he started getting groomed for a president run or has he always been this bad? I feel like every time I hear about him nationally hes doing something scummy like that or rounding up homeless people.
I want to say he's always tilted in that direction, he was equally unloved as SF's mayor. He's old money, he's always looked out for his caste's interests.
Was it too confusing or did someone spend a lot of money playing ads that kept saying it was too confusing I wonder. I'd actually love to hear what the local ads and media around that ballot measure were like if anyone is local to Oregon.
Am Oregonian, I didn't see any ads about RCV. Plenty of ads about other measures and local candidates. Presidential race didn't bother spending money on us as Portland, Salem, Eugene out number the rest of the state and generally vote dem.
Wild, thanks for the input, think im gonna try and read a little more about this and other rcv initiatives. Would love to be able to understand how they pass and fail in case my state decides to put it on the ballot in the future.
It wasn't so much confusing as it was over saturated, like not even half the candidates had statements in the voter pamphlet and many didnt respond to questionnaires or anything. City council was even worse, my district had the entire back of the page filled with candidates like 20+ names.
I'm someone that likes to take time and research candidates, I'm all for choice, I'd rather have it than not, but I can certainly see how it turned people off of the idea, perhaps intentionally.
I used to be more lenient, but it's 2024 and people running for elected political offices with ZERO online presence just pisses me off. I know this is gonna blow everyone's mind, but a large percentage of voters wait till the day before election to research any candidates, sometimes for less than an hour before giving up. It's probably why most of them don't fill out information so a voter just chooses them and they're less likely to dissuade someone if they don't say anything, at least it might've worked in the past.
It needs to be a required special-credit for highschool graduation to fully research and demonstrate you know the candidates on the ballet for your local election and register to vote. This could be bi-partisan, get everyone involved. It doesn't take fully re-working a shafted education system to get more engaged voters.
I'm just kinda miffed by the whole situation with Oregon, first the drug re-criminalization and now a RCV vote just got squashed. Can't wait to hear about everything that went down like with Alaska and Maine.
In a recent by-election I voted in, the ballots were 2-3 feet long with 91 candidates on them. This was in Canada, where we only have paper ballots. The majority of the candidates only registered as part of a protest to get the govt. to reconsider other voting methods than FPTP.
Woah! And I thought we had it bad here. There has to be a way to set some kind of reasonable barrier for entry
not even half the candidates had statements in the voter pamphlet and many didnt respond to questionnaires or anything.
That has been annoyingly common in elections all over the place for as long as I can remember.
You went to the effort of getting on the ballot, but you can't be bothered to answer any questions or even tell people why they should vote for you?
Oregon voted it down because of the pages upon pages of ragebait in the voter's manual, that somebody with a lot of money paid to put there.
There was a lot in favor in there too
Colorado just shot down RCV like 60-40 and it’s infuriating
Same thing happened here in the UK years ago. "Want to make out democracy better?" "Nah, mate."
First Ranked Choice vote.
Elect Progressive.
Other politicians: 'Okay that's enough RCV for America'
Well Oregon also voted down RCV statewide because it's just too confusing lol
The UK did this about a decade ago by a 2-to-1 margin, on the same grounds. Commentators in Australia (which have had ranked choice voting for generations) quipped that this was final proof that Australians are smarter than Brits.
Our legislature passed RCV here in CA and our Dem governor vetoed it. Can't be electing progressives over more big money neoliberal Dems, gotta keep that voting power bloc intact
This type of shit is exactly why Trump got reelected. The party is run by a bunch of charlatans.
They're good at representing their constituents all right. Sadly their only constituents are people donating to their campaigns.
Did Newsom take a rightward lean once he started getting groomed for a president run or has he always been this bad? I feel like every time I hear about him nationally hes doing something scummy like that or rounding up homeless people.
I want to say he's always tilted in that direction, he was equally unloved as SF's mayor. He's old money, he's always looked out for his caste's interests.
Was it too confusing or did someone spend a lot of money playing ads that kept saying it was too confusing I wonder. I'd actually love to hear what the local ads and media around that ballot measure were like if anyone is local to Oregon.
Am Oregonian, I didn't see any ads about RCV. Plenty of ads about other measures and local candidates. Presidential race didn't bother spending money on us as Portland, Salem, Eugene out number the rest of the state and generally vote dem.
Wild, thanks for the input, think im gonna try and read a little more about this and other rcv initiatives. Would love to be able to understand how they pass and fail in case my state decides to put it on the ballot in the future.
It wasn't so much confusing as it was over saturated, like not even half the candidates had statements in the voter pamphlet and many didnt respond to questionnaires or anything. City council was even worse, my district had the entire back of the page filled with candidates like 20+ names.
I'm someone that likes to take time and research candidates, I'm all for choice, I'd rather have it than not, but I can certainly see how it turned people off of the idea, perhaps intentionally.
I used to be more lenient, but it's 2024 and people running for elected political offices with ZERO online presence just pisses me off. I know this is gonna blow everyone's mind, but a large percentage of voters wait till the day before election to research any candidates, sometimes for less than an hour before giving up. It's probably why most of them don't fill out information so a voter just chooses them and they're less likely to dissuade someone if they don't say anything, at least it might've worked in the past.
It needs to be a required special-credit for highschool graduation to fully research and demonstrate you know the candidates on the ballet for your local election and register to vote. This could be bi-partisan, get everyone involved. It doesn't take fully re-working a shafted education system to get more engaged voters.
I'm just kinda miffed by the whole situation with Oregon, first the drug re-criminalization and now a RCV vote just got squashed. Can't wait to hear about everything that went down like with Alaska and Maine.
In a recent by-election I voted in, the ballots were 2-3 feet long with 91 candidates on them. This was in Canada, where we only have paper ballots. The majority of the candidates only registered as part of a protest to get the govt. to reconsider other voting methods than FPTP.
Woah! And I thought we had it bad here. There has to be a way to set some kind of reasonable barrier for entry
That has been annoyingly common in elections all over the place for as long as I can remember.
You went to the effort of getting on the ballot, but you can't be bothered to answer any questions or even tell people why they should vote for you?
Oregon voted it down because of the pages upon pages of ragebait in the voter's manual, that somebody with a lot of money paid to put there.
There was a lot in favor in there too
Colorado just shot down RCV like 60-40 and it’s infuriating
Same thing happened here in the UK years ago. "Want to make out democracy better?" "Nah, mate."