150

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21917446

Ballot in question:

Mayor:

District 1:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago

Ranked Choice Voting is the way forward.

But really? Do we really have to implement learning programs for this shit or something?

[-] Liz@midwest.social 10 points 6 days ago

Yes, actually. RCV is complicated enough that it causes poor NYC voters to submit invalid ballots at a higher rate than their rich and counterparts, something that doesn't happen with "choose one." Still, RCV is good, but Approval Voting is better. Under Approval, an invalid ballot is impossible unless you put in illegal markings, which would invalidate a ballot under any method.

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Can you tell more about approval voting? I haven’t heard of it

[-] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You're given a list of candidates, and you can select however many of them you approve of being in office. Votes are then tallied, and whoever has the highest approval total is who gets voted in.

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Oh fascinating! Thank you

[-] stembolts@programming.dev 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

So I don't get to prioritize one candidate over the other? I can only vote "approve" or "disapprove"?

These are rhetorical questions and I know the answers, but dang, you failed to explain the "ranked" part of "ranked choice"..

[-] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago

That's because I didn't explain ranked choice voting, I explained approval voting... They're two different things

[-] would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

Not who brought it up, but it's essentially just checking a box if you approve of the candidate, and check as many boxes as you want. Highest number of box checks wins. I'd take it over first past the post, but I prefer RCV still. Proponents of approval voting say it helps weed out extreme candidates, but I find the most extreme candidates in the US have historically been a huge net win, so I'd prefer to give them a better shot at winning.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 5 days ago

I'm not sure if Approval would weed out extremists in practice or not, but using the current voter behavior under FPTP and extrapolating to Approval doesn't really hold water. Even in Fargo and St. Louis we're already seeing different voting behavior, where only 30% of voters chose to be strategic in who they vote for. Under a FPTP election you pretty much have to make a strategic decision.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 5 days ago

Other folks have let you know what's up. You can read more about it at https://electionscience.org

Personally I think their recent website remodel really took a lot of the meat and potatoes out of their presentation, but I'm not a media guru, so what do I know?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
150 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2771 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS