A longtime GOP operative helped the Green Party’s Jill Stein get on the N.H. ballot. Democrats smell mischief.
A longtime GOP operative helped the Green Party’s Jill Stein get on the N.H. ballot. Democrats smell mischief.
"According to FEC filings, the Synapse Group has worked for Republican Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination this cycle, as well as GOP candidates for Congress. Synapse has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for field and canvassing work by America PAC, the outside spending group started by allies of Musk that has spent millions of dollars this election cycle to boost Trump and oppose Democrats."
You're viewing a single thread.
Democrats should combat this by advocating for ranked choice or approval choice voting which is a fairer voting system and won't allow for "spoilers"
They should.
They won’t because they benefit from the system too.
But they should.
That's the thing about these viral talking points they're making though - this can be used as a launch pad for approval choice voting if we all bring it up every time it's mentioned in conversation. Using improv's "Yes, and," to further leftist causes. With enough peer pressure it's possible to change public policy.
Yeah, election reform should be the first priority …once this election is done. And age limits for federal offices and judicial appointments. And federal standards for how federal elections are held. And roughly dozens of other things :)
Disagree, I think any Democrat worth voting for will bring this up. I think this is a "right now" topic which is a perfect rebuttal to their annoyance with third party candidates.
The problem is that some form of ranked choice voting is the right choice, but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50? I have had to in a professional setting, and it’s nearly impossible. It just makes them confused and angry. Unfortunately elections are not the greatest forum for explaining new ideas, and if Harris were to come out for it, she’d likely lose more votes than she’d get.
Can you imagine the headlines and tv news chyrons from certain sources if she even mentions “needed election reforms” right now? The whole race would become about how she’s trying to “break elections” and take over the country. We’ve got people right now seriously talking about Haitians eating pets based on absolutely nothing - and you think her talking about changing how we hold elections is going to help?!
However, during the honeymoon of a new administration and if we get enough seats in Congress, it might be possible to start the conversation that would lead us down that road. Especially if folks are willing to make it obvious that we’re going to hold their feet to the fire when it comes time for the mid-terms.
We’re not talking about something even within the purview of the President - we’re talking Congress and state legislatures. The only way to do it is to have a President using the bully pulpit and citizen groups with such overwhelming activity that the politicians know their jobs are on the line.
I have no personal experience of explaining ranked choice.
I can imagine calculating ranked choice vote outcomes is probably pretty labour intensive (without computers).
However people generally understand the concept of how someone comes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a race, and I'm sure most people have thought about a ranked list of their favourite movies or football players, so it's not some completely alien concept.
Instead of just choosing who you want to win, you fill out the ballot saying who is your first choice, second choice, or third choice (or more as needed) for each position. https://time.com/5718941/ranked-choice-voting/
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I'm missing something?
And finally whole bunch of countries manage this without any issues ...
Internationally, it is used by voters in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-and-where-is-the-system-used/2638554/
Coming from a two party country (UK) the only real issue I see is the fragmenting of power and subsequent need to form endless alliances in parliament. (If I voted for the Greens but the Greens need the the votes of another party and end up doing deals is that really representing my vote..)
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I’m missing something?
This is a good video that gets into the issues of various forms of voting, and argues "approval voting is the best option".
Because it is the best option. It's dead simple, it's easy to give updates mid count, it's easy to audit, it's no more expensive than any other form, etc.
This is not to say it's perfect, but it's easily the best.
Look at the Examples section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting and I think you’ll see it’s probably more complicated than anticipated. And everyone has an opinion on which is the “best” method (which is fair as they are each optimized for different goals).
In theory it shouldn’t be hard to explain, and yep, lots of places all over the world manage it without a problem. But remember in the US we’re so idiotic we can’t even accept the metric system. And a fair numbers of folks are absurdly proud of that fact. We’re also not smart enough to handle health care like everyone else does or provide real parental leave. So while ranked choice voting is objectively superior to first past the post and even aligns with a lot of people’s stated goals for fairness, etc., it’s still a huge uphill climb and many folks will reject it outright without even really thinking about it.
So in summary, it can be done, but not likely to be something you want to run on as a presidential candidate.
All valid points, and I didn't realise the differences in outcomes based on the various counting methods!
That would be complex to explain to many people I'm sure. However, and I'm possibly biased here, there's a whole bunch of systems I don't fully understand (car engines, encryption methods, football tournament knock out rules) but I know they work and tend to accept them and at least understand their limitations and outcomes.
I can totally see how people would reject things they don't understand, and could be easily pushed in to rejecting a new system.
Also I agree that winning an election based on the change could be hard, and perhaps attempting to introduce this change later would work. Though I'm not sure the big parties (labour and conservatives in UK) really want to change a system that works for them!
The sad thing is that RCV might require a constitutional amendment to make it happen nationwide. See for example https://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional/
I like it but I don't see it happening without some other major reforms. Hence why I keep hoping for the 127 DC states plan...
but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50?
Just call it instant runoff then. It's the same thing (as I understand it) and has been in the American lexicon for some time now.
Democrats benefit from the current system. How many times to hear "Biden may not be great, but you have to vote for him to stop Trump?"
When you're running against the "let's be dictators" party lack of voter choice is an advantage. You don't have to have any policy other than "we won't be dictators" and voters can't hold you accountable for anything without letting the dictator take power.
A major systematic change is never “right now” - progress at that scale is only made incrementally, through continuous work.
Oh yes. I remember Woman's Suffrage and Civil Rights being incremental changes done by Congress after every election. Something, something, overton window. No, not forcing legislative action with civil unrest.
The sad thing is, watching those old speeches idk if those people would make leeway today. Love their arguments and bravery, and sometimes Madalyne Murray O'Hair is absolutely hilarious, but idk if they'd actually make legal progress today like they did then. Idk if Mr Roger's would have gotten funding from his famous speech. We've regressed as a society.
Its always "next time"
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done? A bit flippant, but it’s the kind of issue that needs to be worked on all the time, not just every four years.
🖐🤚We need to bring the wand-manufacturing jobs back to America 👐, it's terrible👆 they've all closed up shop and moved to Narnia.
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done?
Well, since Democrats ain't gonna do it and Republicans sure as hell ain't, let's quit using it as a prerequisite for fixing things that centrists don't want to fix but also don't want to be pressured over.
The last time that was introduced was 2021. They WERE. They currently are not.
They still are, the Wikipedia page just hasn't been updated.
Edit: Actually, if you'd just look at the "Legislative History" section of the wiki article instead of reading just the top summary, you'd see it got reintroduced in 2024.
That's not ALL the democrats. That's not a message by the entire party.
Eta: yes since my last comment it was reintroduced by the same guy, at the time I commented it had not been reintroduced in 2024
It's from some of the most senior democrats from the progressive and centrist wings and would permanently destroy Gerrymandering, I'm pretty sure most democrats would support it given the chance.
Then the public should demand their representatives talk about it more
Really? You think the Democrats should be spending valuable time in an election year talking about a niche electoral reform that most people would need explained?
There's a reason 99% of political rhetoric revolves around bread and butter issues or something that can be used to scare people. RCV is neither of those, and most people who are actually dedicated to getting RCV already know about FairVote and the Democratic party's willingness to pass RCV.
Niche? I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on, now it's an obscure idea we have to take time to explain? Your last paragraph contradicts your first one - is approval voting so niche that Dems don't know about it and can't talk about it and have to explain, or is it so well known that every Dem already has openly stated their support of it?
Yes, Dems should take time during campaigns to talk about actual policy. That's what campaigns are for.
99% of status quo talking points are boring because our representatives are bad at their jobs.
Niche? I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on
There's a difference between the Democratic base and the Democratic Party politicians who make decisions. RCV is somewhat popular among the Democratic Party politicians, it's basically unknown of/uncared about by the base. That's how it's both niche, and desired by the Party. I'm sure you knew this though.
Yes, Dems should take time during campaigns to talk about actual policy. That's what campaigns are for.
That's what they do. Literally every single election.
99% of status quo talking points are boring because our representatives are bad at their jobs.
No they're boring to you, because they're not meant to appeal to you, you do not represent the majority of the Democratic base, the Democratic base is mostly middle aged college educated liberals, not hyper-online leftists.
Gee, wonder why Democrats have a likability issue. You don't need to alienate people for them. Unless you hate them? It's always so hard to tell with you all
Most people I speak with, most average Americans, have a HUGE problem with the two party system and are open to things like approval or ranked choice voting. Go to any bar and talk to anyone. In terms of democracy, that's majority voters. Since I'm not authoritarian or fascist, I think it's important for representatives to hear issues like these and represent their people's wishes.
Both parties benefit from preventing progress. That's why we are hashing out abortion issues from the fucking 70s. We're arguing about child care, something Republicans wanted originally in...again, the 70s.
Democrat politicians are NOT making this a central talking point because they benefit from ignoring their base. You're right that they enjoy bypassing their civic duty as representatives of everyone. If they wanted to, they'd all be talking about it at every campaign to make it a theme/rally cry. They choose not to and to use old talking points that you can hear more eloquently said from the original trials and speeches of the 70s. It's a niche issue in the media. It's intentionally ignored by Democrat leadership. It's desired and known by most people.
Unfortunately for you, I'm aware of the power I have as an individual. I will keep talking and keep advocating.
I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on
They literally did not say that. Strawman. Fallacious.
No.
Moving the goalpost
No.