Ranked Choice Voting
-
I would prefer both parties endorsing better candidates.
Everyone would, but they really don't seem to have any motivation to do so.
The campaign is about why the other person is bad. Why their policies are bad. Attack ad after attack ad.
Throw in other parties, other viable candidates, and now you're not campaigning on just the other candidate being bad, you now need to campaign on how you are the best option.
It also helps certain people's votes matter more. Because with the current system, if you're in a solid blue or red state, it really doesn't matter at all
Everyone would, but they really don't seem to have any motivation to do so.
The campaign is about why the other person is bad. Why their policies are bad. Attack ad after attack ad.
Throw in other parties, other viable candidates, and now you're not campaigning on just the other candidate being bad, you now need to campaign on how you are the best option.
It also helps certain people's votes matter more. Because with the current system, if you're in a solid blue or red state, it really doesn't matter at all
I've paid attention to the last few French elections, which have two rounds of voting, and the mudslinging seems to be about the same as our shitshow. It's been bizarre watching Macron decry Le Pen in his 2017 campaign, to watching him actually adopt some populist policies during his tenure.
If, in this new system, some people's votes will count more, that means others (mine) will count less. I'm selfishly all about maximizing the political power that my vote carries. I agree with Gorka. For me to agree to give up some of my voting power, I'd have to see Congress go back to pre-2013, where you needed 60 votes to pass bills and these pricks on the hill actually had to work with each other. Not sure how we get out of this vicious cycle.
-
-
-
So this is interesting because it flies in the face of the whole "popular vote should win" idea which I think is a good thing. By that metric A should be the winner of a fairly close three man race. It seems weighted, especially in this polarized political climate, to usually produce a compromise candidate which is not necessarily a bad thing.
I bet if the 2020 election was contested in a fashion where it was mandatory to rank the candidates either the green party or libertarian party would be in office. It would force people to have at least some cursory knowledge of the other parties.
-
Everyone would, but they really don't seem to have any motivation to do so.
The campaign is about why the other person is bad. Why their policies are bad. Attack ad after attack ad.
Throw in other parties, other viable candidates, and now you're not campaigning on just the other candidate being bad, you now need to campaign on how you are the best option.
It also helps certain people's votes matter more. Because with the current system, if you're in a solid blue or red state, it really doesn't matter at all
I've paid attention to the last few French elections, which have two rounds of voting, and the mudslinging seems to be about the same as our shitshow. It's been bizarre watching Macron decry Le Pen in his 2017 campaign, to watching him actually adopt some populist policies during his tenure.
If, in this new system, some people's votes will count more, that means others (mine) will count less. I'm selfishly all about maximizing the political power that my vote carries. I agree with Gorka. For me to agree to give up some of my voting power, I'd have to see Congress go back to pre-2013, where you needed 60 votes to pass bills and these pricks on the hill actually had to work with each other. Not sure how we get out of this vicious cycle.
I've paid attention to the last few French elections, which have two rounds of voting, and the mudslinging seems to be about the same as our shitshow. It's been bizarre watching Macron decry Le Pen in his 2017 campaign, to watching him actually adopt some populist policies during his tenure.
If, in this new system, some people's votes will count more, that means others (mine) will count less. I'm selfishly all about maximizing the political power that my vote carries. I agree with Gorka. For me to agree to give up some of my voting power, I'd have to see Congress go back to pre-2013, where you needed 60 votes to pass bills and these pricks on the hill actually had to work with each other. Not sure how we get out of this vicious cycle.
Honest here, but why would you vote count for less? I may have missed something in our back and forth.
A quick look at the French election cycle, and it seems to be greatly condensed compared to ours. According to wiki, Macron announced March 3rd he was running for reelection, the first round of the election was on April 10th, and the run off between the top two is on April 24th. That already seems like an improvement over our years long process. I know some countries have rules around when campaigning can officially happen (not sure if France is one of those) but that would be a great thing as well. So you don't get two years of a politician and then two years of them just running a campaign while in office.
-
I've paid attention to the last few French elections, which have two rounds of voting, and the mudslinging seems to be about the same as our shitshow. It's been bizarre watching Macron decry Le Pen in his 2017 campaign, to watching him actually adopt some populist policies during his tenure.
If, in this new system, some people's votes will count more, that means others (mine) will count less. I'm selfishly all about maximizing the political power that my vote carries. I agree with Gorka. For me to agree to give up some of my voting power, I'd have to see Congress go back to pre-2013, where you needed 60 votes to pass bills and these pricks on the hill actually had to work with each other. Not sure how we get out of this vicious cycle.
Honest here, but why would you vote count for less? I may have missed something in our back and forth.
A quick look at the French election cycle, and it seems to be greatly condensed compared to ours. According to wiki, Macron announced March 3rd he was running for reelection, the first round of the election was on April 10th, and the run off between the top two is on April 24th. That already seems like an improvement over our years long process. I know some countries have rules around when campaigning can officially happen (not sure if France is one of those) but that would be a great thing as well. So you don't get two years of a politician and then two years of them just running a campaign while in office.
Honest here, but why would you vote count for less? I may have missed something in our back and forth.
We are a purple state when it comes to the electoral college. In the presidential election, our individual votes count more than an individual vote from California or Alaska.
-
Honest here, but why would you vote count for less? I may have missed something in our back and forth.
We are a purple state when it comes to the electoral college. In the presidential election, our individual votes count more than an individual vote from California or Alaska.
We are a purple state when it comes to the electoral college. In the presidential election, our individual votes count more than an individual vote from California or Alaska.
No, I mean why would someone's vote count less as a result of ranked choice voting.
I know the electoral college makes individual votes matter more or less by state. Wildly sometimes. I get that system is not great and outdated.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
We are a purple state when it comes to the electoral college. In the presidential election, our individual votes count more than an individual vote from California or Alaska.
No, I mean why would someone's vote count less as a result of ranked choice voting.
I know the electoral college makes individual votes matter more or less by state. Wildly sometimes. I get that system is not great and outdated.
No, I mean why would someone's vote count less as a result of ranked choice voting.
I know the electoral college makes individual votes matter more or less by state. Wildly sometimes. I get that system is not great and outdated.
Because if we switch to ranked choice voting for the presidential election, that will mean the electoral college goes away. Thus, my vote would count less in presidential elections.
-
No, I mean why would someone's vote count less as a result of ranked choice voting.
I know the electoral college makes individual votes matter more or less by state. Wildly sometimes. I get that system is not great and outdated.
Because if we switch to ranked choice voting for the presidential election, that will mean the electoral college goes away. Thus, my vote would count less in presidential elections.
Because if we switch to ranked choice voting for the presidential election, that will mean the electoral college goes away. Thus, my vote would count less in presidential elections.
Why would it necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of ranked the electoral college? Could we not use ranked choice voting in each state to determine where their electoral college votes go?
Also, in the hypothetical where the electoral college does go away, our votes would now count more or less relative to another person in a different state depending on that state's population. This is all based on math though and not considering a hard red/blue state vs purple.
-
Because if we switch to ranked choice voting for the presidential election, that will mean the electoral college goes away. Thus, my vote would count less in presidential elections.
Why would it necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of ranked the electoral college? Could we not use ranked choice voting in each state to determine where their electoral college votes go?
Also, in the hypothetical where the electoral college does go away, our votes would now count more or less relative to another person in a different state depending on that state's population. This is all based on math though and not considering a hard red/blue state vs purple.
Why would it necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of ranked the electoral college? Could we not use ranked choice voting in each state to determine where their electoral college votes go?
I suppose you could. I just assumed it'd be the same format as other national elections.
-
Why would it necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of ranked the electoral college? Could we not use ranked choice voting in each state to determine where their electoral college votes go?
I suppose you could. I just assumed it'd be the same format as other national elections.
I suppose you could. I just assumed it'd be the same format as other national elections.
Even in that instance your vote would count less relative to some people and more relative to others. I'd need to understand what the average vote is "worth".
But ranked choice voting doesn't inherently make anyone's vote count as less. It just helps us move on from a two party system and give us a better chance of a candidate evetykre tolerates
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login