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.
- 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.
- 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
While I'm extremely critical of Ranked Choice, I'll admit elections using it are largely immune to one single attack that Republicans love, the Ralph Nader.
They fund someone who sounds great to the more fickle parts of the left, knowing that the candidate is completely unable to cross over into mass appeal, all so that the spoiler will siphon votes off of the main Democratic candidate, thus allowing the Republican candidate to win with less than 50% of the vote.
In that one scenario, Ranked Choice easily performs better than First Past the Post.
In almost every other scenario, it's either a tie for just as shitty, or sometimes it's actually worse than FPtP.
Still, I seriously doubt that the people pushing for the repeal here are that concerned about the other areas where Ranked Choice falls flat as a voting system. They hate it because somehow a Democrat won.
Which, sadly, might have come about because of one of the areas where Ranked Choice falls flat as a voting system. See, the more candidates you have in a Ranked Choice election, and the closer to viability they are in relationship to each other, the worse the system performs. Especially in elections that force you to rank all candidates.
See, Ranked Choice advocates tell you that if your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice. This is only true in the first round.
If your second choice is eliminated before your first choice is, your vote skips your second choice and goes to your third. Or your fourth, or if there are no more candidates on your ballot because they didn't last as long as your first choice did, your vote is just thrown out.
If your second choice is the most popular candidate but just needed one more first round vote to stay in the election and win everything, it doesn't matter. They've been booted in the first round and are gone.
There's more wrong with Ranked Choice, but ballot exhaustion and the screwiness of the eliminations is a big one.
A system that does not have these problems is STAR. It was actually designed as a voting system by people who study elections and human behavior.
The system is easy. You get a ballot. You rate each candidate on a scale of 0-5. How many stars? That's it for the voter.
The counting is easy as well. Count how many stars each candidate got. The top two then go head to head on each ballot. If I rated Bob at 5 and Joe at 4 because I like both, but Bob more, Bob gets the vote.
The zero is important here, because there are candidates that you'll hate and refuse to support at all, even with a 1 star, and candidates that you'll hate just slightly less if it comes to it.
You can rate two people the same. In the second round, that's counted as "no preference".
Anyway. That got a bit long, but voting systems are something I tend to care about.
I always tell people rcv is best when there are 3 candidates and only 2 are viable.
You can safely vote for someone who is definitely going to lose and keep the status quo
If you want a voting system that encourages the emergence of new parties then you must be able to vote for people equally and you must be able to indicate significant preference between one candidate and another
Something like ranked round robin can also cover it but I think STAR is more intuitive