politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Americans are too stupid to vote for a 3rd party and they're too stupid to implement any kind of ranked choice voting.
We all suffer because of our collective stupidity, and rich people continue to profit off of it.
Oh no, we aren't too stupid to implement ranked choice voting, we live in a country run by people who have a vested interest in not implementing it
Por que no los dos?
MA lost the ballot initiative for ranked choice voting by lobbyists who made enough people believe it's too complicated.
Too complicated? Motherfucker you've been ranking favorite things longer than you've been shitting on a toilet.
ooh now im thinking lets just do tier list of canidates.
That's almost literally exactly what RCV is.
almost. the problem with tier lists is maga folks would put trump as S tier and someone like me would not rank anyone above B and more likely C.
W/e it lays the groundwork for having a system which aligns more with what you are voting for rather than against.
Also, oompa-loompa isn't likely to live much longer in actuarial terms, especially that diet considered.
just to be clear im not arguing against any type of alternative to first past the post but more musing about people making tier list videos and trying to joke a bit.
Extremely ignorant take. The majority of people want ranked choice, the government is just setup in such a way that it is exceedingly difficult to achieve, though there are people trying. Plus a 3rd party has literally zero chance until that happens so you even bringing that up demonstrates how fucking stupid your plan actually is
But why bother using your brain when you can just whine about Ameridumbs ehhahhehahehhhahahehhahehahahahhehahah
With all due respect. Because we probably agree on a lot of things. However, the "Americans are too stupid/lazy" take is the excuse used by stupid/lazy Americans to avoid making effort for change. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
It is frustrating to watch. Each party chooses a candidate that party members want and neither candidate represents what the majority of voters want but they're forced to pick one or the other. There is surely enough voters who want something different to elect a third candidate but people are afraid that splitting the vote will lead to the worst candidate winning and so vote for one of the two parties, feeling like there is no other option.
Canada has the same problem. A lot of us wanted to vote NDP in April, but were afraid splitting the vote would lead to a conservative win and so we voted liberal.
The primaries are the equiivalent of ranked choice voting. The idea is that each party, so each side of the political spectrum, brings out their "best" candidates and the populace votes on who best represents them. The winners of that move on to the general.
It isn't quite the same but it also isn't THAT far off the reality of how the votes turn out when the counting is done. And, theoretically, it encourages party platforms that incorporate the more popular parts of each popular candidate's platforms. And that... sometimes happens.
You have absolutely no idea how ranked choice or primaries work.
Let's suppose the Democrat primary has two progressives and one neolib. The progressives get 28% and 32% of the vote...a total of 60% of the vote. The one neolib gets 40%.
Progressive policies are more popular, but neolib won.
This is the curse of FPTP.
Ranked choice would say that those 60% prefer one or the other progressive with the neolib being last. The result is theore popular progressive won, and more importantly, a progressive won.
One thing I will point out as an Aussie who knows the system well…here, the preference choice is given to the voter, not the party unless the voter is happy with that. We can choose to vote the whole ticket or just vote 1 and let that party delegate our preferences.
I always mark the whole ticket. Typically, for me it’s #1 Green, then a raft of independents dependent on their standing, Labor usually third last then One Nation and the Coalition last. Parties do negotiate here about who they’ll preference and that can come down to electorate as well. Generally however, Greens will preference Labor and ON et al will preference the Liberals. Where a preference goes however is at the discretion of the voter unless they just vote 1 for their preferred party.
It sounds like the progressives just need to coalesce around one candidate in the primary then, like the neolibs have done, and then they would win.
It sounds like you're opposed to having more choice in who represents you.
Which is what we see happen under parliamentary systems when the shit hits the fan.
The key is to explore that space while there is time rather than wait until it is a zero sum game with a REAL mediocre candidate
As opposed to ranked choice where no candidate gets a plurality, both progressives get eliminated, and the second choice "neolib" votes win? Because "the neolib" is also getting a fair amount of moderate and even conservative votes.
At which point "the neolib" flips everyone off and wins? As opposed to needs to convince the two progressives to support them in exchange for platform concessions?
Or we can just simplify your post to "under this system, people will vote the way I want them to" and leave it at that?