this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
787 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19121 readers
2705 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
 

Businessinsider.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stinkywinks@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What is confusing about, " pick your favorite, pick your second favorite"? You think if you asked them the same question about ice cream, they would be confused? Also, you don't HAVE to pick more than one. My understanding is that if you vote for an eliminated candidate, then your 2nd choice will be used on the next round. But they don't even need to know that to pick their favorite ice cream. It seems good for democracy? Someone let me know why it isn't.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Both sides are scared to death to lose power. It's a nice little rig they have. They more or less choose your options and you vote for one.

Ranked choice makes it FAR easier for an independent to make it in and dismantle the rest of their two-party shenanigans.

It's not confusing. It could let in a third party, they don't like that.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not confusing at all and everyone knows it. This is just the narrative they choose when trying to deny people the opportunity to uproot their cushy little scam. You'll notice that they're not campaigning to get people to vote against implementing this system, they're trying to stop people from getting to choose in the first place.

[–] ZMonster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Holy shit, this makes sense to me. I'm in a historically red state and our RCV is massively disliked by the Trumpers. They also lost the last election. If the incumbent DC voters see RCV as a reason they would lose their current candidates, they would say the same shit. And they are.

[–] JoeHill@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, you don't HAVE to pick more than one.

In my experience that’s where people can get confused. We switched to ranked choice voting in university student government elections and that idea was not well-explained for the first election. We eventually got the hang of it though.

Still a bit surprised that it’s the Democrats objecting to this one. It might be a function of them having a near stranglehold on local DC government, and not necessarily indicative of how they’d react in more competitive states.

[–] foofy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yes exactly. Whichever party has a stranglehold in a given state/county/whatever will object because ranked choice voting has the potential to allow previously marginal (or zero chance) candidates to be elected.

Democrats are not inherently more fair-minded than conservatives. Both parties' (all parties, actually) first priority is to maintain power. Everything else is secondary to that.