politics

I'd take RCV over nothing, but STAR and approval are significantly better like the other user said.

Some reasons for approval

• Addition is the only math involved. So it is extremely easy to get live results during counting. It makes auditing votes extremely easy.
• It is dead simple to understand, so the least amount of voters will be confused by it.

A longer form explanation of some of the other stuff:

https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/

This is the only issue worth campaigning on. Fuck everyone for not realizing it. We will never get this system under control if it continues to misrepresent what the majority wants. There is no amount of bargaining and compromise that will ever bring forth the change we need to stop global climate change. Ranked choice - for its simplicity. Star - for its utility. Etc. Etc. Make the debate strictly about how we will reform voting and push everything else to the end of the list.

BTW, I'm not asking politicians to do this. I'm ask you, the people, if you will make your voice heard and enshrine it with a government that truly represents you.

I've had the same reaction learning about religion 😂

Learning that it was so rich white people in the south could substitute the votes of newly freed black slaves with theirs is what got me.

All this shit is because they were too fucking nice to the slavers.

Okay guys stop up voting this! Simply let me assure you that I will upvote for you!

If you upvote this comment to 100, I will upvote the way you want me to upvote.

Actually I'll do you better! Look. I know these guys who can upvote. If you upvote my comment past 100, I'll have them vote for you just the way you telepathically have told me to upvote by up voting for me....what? Why would you even need to know me or my friend who hasn't even talked to you directly? That's crazy talk! I'm an upvoter, I upvote. They. My friends who can upvote are true upvoters too. Soon you won't even need to upvote at all! You can just go read all the shit we Upvoted for you! Yey! We call our selves the "Upvotlectoral" college. We learn algebra in this college too, but we never graduate...at least you don't know if we have graduated or not.

Yeah this headline is like "animals disapprove of farm"

America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America. After the Revolutionary War, he had observed in Massachusetts “a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property.” That populist rage had led to Shays’s Rebellion, which pitted a band of debtors against their creditors.

Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in “Federalist No. 10” as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

To prevent factions from distorting public policy and threatening liberty, Madison resolved to exclude the people from a direct role in government. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 10.” The Framers designed the American constitutional system not as a direct democracy but as a representative republic, where enlightened delegates of the people would serve the public good. They also built into the Constitution a series of cooling mechanisms intended to inhibit the formulation of passionate factions, to ensure that reasonable majorities would prevail.

The people would directly elect the members of the House of Representatives, but the popular passions of the House would cool in the “Senatorial saucer,” as George Washington purportedly called it: The Senate would comprise natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators rather than elected by the people. And rather than directly electing the chief executive, the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment. The separation of powers, meanwhile, would prevent any one branch of government from acquiring too much authority. The further division of power between the federal and state governments would ensure that none of the three branches of government could claim that it alone represented the people.

Would require a constitutional amendment to do so. 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of all state legislatures to outright remove it.

Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states. But that's a less direct mechanism that keeps the electoral college intact, just changes the way electoral votes are distributed.

NPVIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

As usual, Republican states won't adopt this. And you can expect Republicans to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if it ever does get adopted, which the current conservative majority will almost certainly bend over backwards to find "unconstitutional."

While we are at it, we should add 1 more state. That would give us 53, which is a prime number.

We would truly be one nation, indivisible....