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
Did anyone read the article? It’s not saying ever you guys think it’s saying. The DC Democrats are saying that in two predominantly black areas, having voters pick two choices on ballots has already led to confusion and that ranked choice will lead to even worse confusion.
They’re not speculating here, they’re describing what’s already known.
I read the article, and it doesn't change the argument. Undervoting is a problem, but one that doesn't affect ranked choice voting any more than fptp. Voters were able to select two candidates and only voted for one, and probably don't even realize they did not complete their ballot. If anything, a little ballot education outreach that would be necesaary while implementing ranked choice might reduce undervoting overall.
Clarification: low-income voters from predominantly black areas did this, which is effectively disenfranchisement. That's the concern: that low-income minorities may be disenfranchised by more complex/confusing ballots. The concern is real because it already happened.
Yeah, low income correlates with low education and an increase in voter error. That's not a reason to not make the elections more fair or more accurate. It's the opposite of that.
Ranked Choice voters can still select their first and only choice. If there are two spots, there will be two sections to fill out rankings and it will likely result in fewer undervotes.
I share your frustration. I live in ward 6 which shares political influence with ward 7 and 8.
the confusion isn't from the ranked vote as much as the way the ballot is currently arranged.
the ranked choice just happens to be the change used to fix the disenfranchisement and the complaint is that's not enough.
I agree.
Our both choices were not great and having a system where you arent choosing between corporate shill one and two would aid that.... stop apologizing for assholes being racist and power hungry. Black people aren't stupid. Say what you really mean instead of pandering around it....
You guys are exhausting.
No one is saying black people are too dumb to understand ranked choice. They're saying that people from low income, predominantly black areas, under-voted when required to choose two candidates on past ballots. That means those people were effectively disenfranchised. If the evidence shows that ranked choice could potentially disenfranchise people from low-income minority areas, that is something to be concerned about.
That's not a reason good enough to hold back everyone else from the benefits of ranked choice. If they're worried about that alleged potential disenfranchisement then they should get out there and inform those people of how to do it properly. Send out flyers, emails, publish advertisements, knock on doors, etc.
The rest of us are already disenfranchised by these shitty 2-party choices.
I'm not saying that they're right. I'm saying that calling them racists who think black people are dumb is a complete mischaracterization.
No, no one read the article. They're just spouting nonsense.