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
The issue is that we're not in this situation accidentally. Every 4 years we say "I know it sucks, but for now we just have to vote out the lesser evil, then we can focus on change" then go 4 more years without making any changes. We'll always just be voting for the lesser of 2 evils, whether for this election or the 2064 election. Everyone with any real say in the government loves how things are working out right now, and has no intention to allow us to truly vote for anyone other than 2 candidates that have been vetted by the oil companies.
Push for ranked choice voting for your state, and if we can get that implemented nationwide then we might be going somewhere.
Ranked choice voting is great because it enables votes to go to smaller parties. To get it passed, you'd need to get lawmakers to alter the laws. Those lawmakers are either Republicans or Democrats. Both benefit from first-past-the-post, and neither benefits from ranked choice. Good luck getting ranked choice passed.
I absolutely agree with pushing the issue at a local level, however we should probably be aiming for approval or STAR voting:
https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/
RCV is way better than our current system, but even RCV has flaws.
We also need regulation requiring election reform within party primaries, because as of right now it is a clown show.
It's already going to be a hugely heavy lift to get RCV, so no need to complicate the effort by suggesting alternatives to RCV.
Just don't think there's room for that conversation in our political environment today. And yes, I hated saying what I just said, but still.
Arguably, RCV is just as complicated as STAR, and approval is simpler than RCV. And part of the difficulty in the heavy lift to get RCV is that it has some pretty rough flaws, flaws that don't exist within the alternatives.
And the political environment is easing up to the idea of moving towards better voting methods. I'm not saying we should let perfection be the enemy of progress. All I am saying is that if we are going to be making changes, we should at least attempt the better options.
I'll take your word for it, sincerely, as I'm not familiar with STAR, but was speaking more from a social 'selling it' point of view. Simplicity tends to sell better than complexity, and RCV is the one that's known of already.
What we citizens need to do now is get our elected officials to start talking about the pros and cons of STAR versus RCV, etc. So far they've been more than happy to ignore everything except the status quo, unfortunately.
Agreed. And that's why I think approval is such a big improvement over ranked choice.
"Tell us who you approve of, candidate with the most approval wins"
Is a hell of a lot simpler than
"Rank every candidate without ranking multiple as the same level, then we check if any candidate has a 50% majority, if not, the lowest candidate gets booted and the next wave of second choices comes in, repeat until there is 50% majority."
And that's before the peripheral benefits.
Agreed. It's honestly sad.
My city/state has been warming up to these kinds of talks and candidates at least, which gives me a glimmer of hope. But for now it is not enough.