You're viewing a single thread.
Slightly OT, but this is also why we absolutely need ranked voting ASAP. How much better would a candidate like Sanders do if people knew that voting for him as first choice and Biden as second was possible?
Well he lost the primaries, which is when you vote for the candidate you really want. But he lost the primaries because the DNC aired a never ending stream of bullshit telling the people it was impossible for Sanders to win, and then pointing to the current super delegate polls as evidence. Idk why people are terrified of voting for a losing candidate in the primaries though. Who gives a fuck if your vote loses in the primaries? You should vote for the candidate you want, not the one you think is going to win. It's not a casino bet.
The closed primary system is just so fucked in general, these are private organizations that can do whatever they want, the DNC and the RNC.
I still don't like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She was literally marched out of the DNC office because of the bias she showed towards Hillary Clinton in leaked emails. Then she gets hired by the Clinton campaign!
Shit was so crazy.
Decades ago I changed my voter registration just because I was tired of not being able to vote in the primaries. I think they've changed that since then, but I don't know, since it doesn't impact me anymore.
I think some states require that you be registered to the party for primaries and some have open primaries.
The thing is, because the final vote for president isn't ranked choice, the spoiler effect is also spoiling the primary. People will vote for the candidate they think can will at the national level, else Trump might win.
If you had ranked choice voting at the actual election, only then would the spoiler effect be fixed.
Now no offence to the US political system but the primaries are a symptom of a two party system.
Without them and with ranked choice voting, y'all would have had Sanders (edit: in 2016) and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Much love. I mean it.
No offense taken. Even our first president and founding father, George Washington advised against a bicameral system.
Who knows what we'd have. We could grow vibrant third parties, too.
They should just pick a dictator for life, would save them a lot of money and the result would be the same.
The left-ish party did the exact same thing to Teddy Roosevelt in 1916. They chose to fall on their sword and get a slavery denier in office rather than let the somewhat progressive (for the time) Roosevelt be their candidate (at the time, Roosevelt was allowed to run for a 3rd term). Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo. Roosevelt would have won if not for liberal interference via their backing of Taft, just like Bernie would have.
I remember learning from my college history professor that when Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California, the Democrats teamed up with the Republicans to ensure he did not win. They would rather lose than let a socialist run the state. Even with their meddling he very nearly won the election with 37% of the votes. That is a lesson the American people should really take to heart. The established parties have more in common with each other than they do with their constituency.
Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo.
Thanks for the snort-laugh.
Nice complete non-refutation of my point.
Yes, but I remember numerous people being like "Well he could never win against Trump, so I'm voting for Biden."
People love ranked choice voting but not whats involved with getting it instituted.
Can you elaborate?
Voting for candidates that support it.
Here's an interesting anecdote. The people of Shelby County, TN elected to enact ranked choice voting in the county (it was a ballot option 2 elections ago). It hasn't been signed into law yet.
So at least in this case, I'd say the problem isn't people not voting, it's nefarious agents succeeding in subverting the feeble democratic processes in this country to act against the people's interest.
Ranked choice isn’t that much better. It is better, but very slightly. We need to implement STAR, which is vastly better even at its worst. Essentially, it’s just a 0-5 vote for candidates, and any empty is a 0. It allows you to rank some at the same and then some as “better than nothing” leading to a well rounded choice that most people approve of.
Could pls explain what OT stands for?
Off topic
Ofc duh... It all makes sense now, thank you.
Permanently Deleted
Or, you could support candidates that support racked choice voting (who are mostly liberals). That sort of thing happens locally and at the state level.