You're viewing a single thread.
If you have a problem with this line of reasoning then your actual problem is first past the post voting.
Abolish first past the post voting and you can finally actually vote for things you like, rather than against things you hate, but we're stuck in first past the post voting, so, you must vote strategically.
Just curious, do you really expect Republicans or democrats to support legislation to end their stranglehold on American politics?
"In 2023, 74 bills were introduced supporting ranked-choice voting and 57 of these bills had only Democrat sponsors. In fact, just eight percent of the total bills received bipartisan support."
No, but there's one party that has shown support for it and one party that has attempted to outright ban it.
It's an easy choice.
What are you quoting?
There's one party that pretends to support it publicly as long as they can blame the Republicans for "blocking it".
Ftfy. This is the Democrats go to game plan.
It is insulting to pretend Democrats support ranked choice voting while they're suing to keep it off of the ballot in DC.
There are some democrats that support ranked choice voting.
There are almost no republicans that do.
It is still an easy choice.
It's almost as if a political party isn't a monolith. Crazy.
Ranked choice voting is still first past the post... There is still only one winner, the results aren't spread proportionally. Ranked choice voting can give even bigger majorities with even fewer votes. Since you have only 2 real parties, it won't change much in the US.
Your understanding of Ranked Choice voting, and what the point of it is, seems to be missing a big chunk right there in the middle...
No, nothing in ranked choice voting says that it becomes proportional representation. Ranked choice voting in the same first past the post system still stays first past the post. If you want proportional representation, it's not it.
This is a debated topic where I live. Our current PM would love ranked choice voting because it would solidify their position, kill most changes of a conservative victory and eliminate any chance of most other parties to have a meaningful impact on the government. That's why he abandoned the electoral reform because every commity and experts said that it would be way worse for democracy.
you're clearly misunderstanding something, conflating some terms, none of that makes sense when you know what those words mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk
please watch this, make sure your understanding is correct, then come back.
You're conflating "voting for a single-seat position" with any method of vote counting. There's only ever one winner if there's one seat, but there are better ways of counting votes than first-past-the-post. At least with ranked-choice, more people are happy with the outcome because the winner might be their second preferred option.
I'm not the one who mixes them up... The one I replied to was presenting RCV as a panacea that would help with this party voting when in fact it entrenches the most popular party and remove most chances of other party to ever win an election.
If you want smaller parties to win, RCV isn't the solution, you need proportional representation. You can combine both though, but that's not what was implied in the comment that I replied to.
Ranked choice cannot do that, if it can, explain the mechanism
...no, ranked choice prevents the spoiler effect, and therefore allows you to vote for candidates you are actually interested in without risk.
This would allow people to vote for 3rd parties without worry, and would destroy the two party system eventually.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and that's not what first past the post means.
Dictatorships are a terrible place to live because the wealth of the nation doesn't depend on the citizens. Illiterate slaves can dig-up a mine.
Democracies on the other hand are better places to live not because the people are better, but because the wealth of the nation is dependend on the productivity of the citizens. That's the only reason you have a highway to the hospital.
Vote in the party you think will enact change, and protest / halt the economy until changes start happening. Right now politicians and corporations don't care nobody is happy, it's not affecting their bottom line. Id argue in recent years they accelerated their abuse because there are no consequences.
The parties in place won't do it themselves, the people need to do it
Do you really think that voting for these people is going to change their mind?
Not any less than not voting, at least.
They already have in several states... So yes?
How many states? Alternatively, how many states have passed laws banning it?
The problem with fptp is that strategic voting leads to part consolidation. The solution to this flaw is value voting.
The solution is to ditch it and use a system that actually reflects the will of the people, such as approval/STAR voting.
why not both?