You're viewing a single thread.
This is exactly why we need ranked choice voting.
Winner takes all essentially demoralizes and alienates voters and drives people who agree with each other to fight because they're trapped in a broken system.
So instead of fighting the system, it's easier to just blame other people and alienate more of them against your cause, shooting yourself in the foot with ignorance. It's kind of disgusting.
I'd settle for getting rid of the electoral college at this point. We could've had at least 4 years of Al Gore setting us on the right path to avoiding the worst of climate change yet here we are having to put up with a potentially third popular vote upset in recent history.
Ranked choice is more plausible than removing the EC. Ranked choice already exists in some places and the Dems have a proposal (but are lacking the votes) to implement it for Congress.
Removing the EC would require a constitutional amendment so 3/4 for the House and Senate and ratified by 3/4 of the states. Or maybe it's 2/3 for some of those, but either way it needs bipartisan support and why would the GOP remove a system that got their guy elected twice this century?
There is some kind of interstate compact thing to get around it, but making a huge change to elections via sneaky shenanigans won't go over well at a time when a lot of doubts about election integrity have been widely promoted. Wrongly promoted, but still, doing sneaky things about elections is a real no-go right now.
Why is it so common to blame the third party vote for democrats losing in 2016? It sounds like if the democrats would take an anti-war stance like the green party does, they would have won most of those votes too?
Seems more appropriate to expect the party to reflect the population rather than the other way around.
It's the Schrodinger's Tankies. Simultaneously so insignificant as a voting block that it's a waste of time to appeal to them, and so influential that it's exclusively their fault when the dems lose.
Yeah. This is why some Democrats get called Blue MAGA and I don't think they get it.
They treat lefties like the same kinda scapegoat the Republicans treat anyone not white. It's an easy "other" group that can be considered outside the main group and fighting them is "the good moral duty of the Democratic Party."
I sometimes wonder if that division and push for the center-left to be apathetic towards the further left is part of the Russian Psy-op that they are so afraid of cause that's the only reason I can think of a party like this ignoring their youngest, poorest, or most emotional bases, that courting on the right makes them win.
That's also falling for scapegoats. The call is coming from inside the house, and it has been for over three decades.
The center is apathetic and hostile to the left because they're not the left. They're not courting leftwingers because they don't want them. They keep reaching across the isle because they fundamentally agree with their basic beliefs. It's why Sorkin dreams about President Mitt Romney (D). The grand Neoliberal turn is disintegrating, and is being besieged by MAGA from the right and progressives from the left, and both the dems and the GOP are consistently moving right because while they find MAGA brutish and uncouth, they're appeasable, whereas the demands from the left are fundamentally unacceptable to them.
Oh sure. Just wishful thinking and using the same garbage excuse that I hear whenever a neoliberal doesn't like what a leftist says and calls them a Russian shill.
That's really the most obvious sign they are republicans of the past. They keep trying to use a red scare to ignore bases they don't like.
I do get the example but it's definitely hard to quantify how many votes would be lost on the other end by appealing further to the left.
Centrists make up the majority of the voting block, which is why we're in the situation we are now where everyone is dancing around this fickle middle group. And yet politics has also somehow never felt so polarized in my adult life, go figure.
Wasn’t Green Party seen sitting at a table with Putin?
Yes she was! Its usually the prime piece of evidence people put up to prove that Jill Stein is working for Putin.
I think its a bit conspiracy adjacent myself. If there was more concrete proof, I'd accept the picture as supporting evidence but its not great on its own.
Feel free to disagree though.
Of course they were, but only in the last 60 days before the election.
The green party forgot about the green party right up until it became useful for the Cheeto fuhrer's campaign.
Al gore won that election
Why not both?
(Oh yeah, the fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic system concocted by literal slave masters.)
How would we get ranked choice passed using the current two party system though? I can't imagine politicians voting to give up power in that way.
Maine has, and Alaska too. Although Alaska is trying to repeal it this election cycle.
How would that contribute towards changing the policy federally?
When you give ppl better options they tell others how awesome it is
Thats fair, I'm worried about how long it will take though.
There is no federal policy. Elections are handled by the states. It's in the Constitution.