LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The case for changing primaries and going to ranked choice voting

RobDownSouth said:
"Ranked Choice" prevented extremist Sarah Palin's political comeback in Alaska, which is a good test of the system's viability to prevent lunatic fringe with hardcore supporters from gaming the system.
Click to expand...

Open primaries and ranked choice voting also got Senator Murkowski re-elected. Otherwise she would have lost to a farther right wing challenger.
 
RobDownSouth said:
"Ranked Choice" prevented extremist Sarah Palin's political comeback in Alaska, which is a good test of the system's viability to prevent lunatic fringe with hardcore supporters from gaming the system.
Click to expand...

She was incredibly pissed about that.

It was wonderful.
 
ll74 said:
Yah, I agree. I don't understand why people would be against ranked choice.
Click to expand...
Ask any of the aging MAGA boomers here. They have a gauzy 1950s mindset of what constitutes "voting": white people standing in line at the polls. Period.

Mail in ballots? Communism
Absentee ballots? Communism
Military voting? Almost Communism.
Twice as many voting machines in white precincts vs non-white precincts? "We've always done it this way!"
Ranked choice? "I don't understand it, so DOUBLE COMMUNISM!"
 
ll74 said:
Open primaries and rank choice voting is a great solution to many problems.
Click to expand...
They are definite improvements, but if you really want a truly proportional representative system you need to get rid of single-member districts.
 
bijedi said:
They are definite improvements, but if you really want a truly proportional representative system you need to get rid of single-member districts.
Click to expand...
The formula for the electoral college is broken. When one Wyoming elector holds the same political power as 220,000 votes in a single California district, the system is skewed wildly towards the rural states. Either base the representation of in terms of multiples of the least poplulated single district state or increase the number of elected representatives from the current 435 members.
 
RobDownSouth said:
The formula for the electoral college is broken. When one Wyoming elector holds the same political power as 220,000 votes in a single California district, the system is skewed wildly towards the rural states. Either base the representation of in terms of multiples of the least poplulated single district state or increase the number of elected representatives from the current 435 members.
Click to expand...
The electoral college is an entirely different kettle of fish. But it is only used in presidential elections, and I am not convinced RCV would be a significant factor in presidential elections. Even without the EC. I wouldn't oppose it, I just don't think it would change much.

But multi-member districts with RCV has the potential to really shake up congressional elections.
 
Pair up RCV with the electoral college allocations being distributed like Nebraska/Maine, now we are talking.
 
We have transferrable preference voting in Australia. It works pretty well in allowing the individual to make a protest vote but then have their subsequent preferences transfer to a more likely winner. The weakness of our system is that Trades Unions dominate the selection of candidates nominated by Labor Party and the Liberal ( actually conservative) party nominations have been hijacked by right wing cliques a long way to the right of moderate voters. This has resulted in a significant minority of moderate independent candidates taking seats from both the major parties, especially from the 'Liberals'.

For example we have a Labor government at the moment but they have to be careful not to get offside with the moderate (Teal) candidates, particularly in the Senate. It helps that the Independent candidates seem to have a lot more real life experience than the so called major party professionals.
 
ishtat said:
We have transferrable preference voting in Australia. It works pretty well in allowing the individual to make a protest vote but then have their subsequent preferences transfer to a more likely winner. The weakness of our system is that Trades Unions dominate the selection of candidates nominated by Labor Party and the Liberal ( actually conservative) party nominations have been hijacked by right wing cliques a long way to the right of moderate voters. This has resulted in a significant minority of moderate independent candidates taking seats from both the major parties, especially from the 'Liberals'.

For example we have a Labor government at the moment but they have to be careful not to get offside with the moderate (Teal) candidates, particularly in the Senate. It helps that the Independent candidates seem to have a lot more real life experience than the so called major party professionals.
Click to expand...

Our district has a Teal independent, the first non-Liberal MP ever from there. Though she wasn't my first choice (I voted Green, then Labor, then for her), I'm pleased so far.
 
ishtat said:
We have transferrable preference voting in Australia. It works pretty well in allowing the individual to make a protest vote but then have their subsequent preferences transfer to a more likely winner. The weakness of our system is that Trades Unions dominate the selection of candidates nominated by Labor Party and the Liberal ( actually conservative) party nominations have been hijacked by right wing cliques a long way to the right of moderate voters. This has resulted in a significant minority of moderate independent candidates taking seats from both the major parties, especially from the 'Liberals'.

For example we have a Labor government at the moment but they have to be careful not to get offside with the moderate (Teal) candidates, particularly in the Senate. It helps that the Independent candidates seem to have a lot more real life experience than the so called major party professionals.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about Australian elections except what I learn from juice media.

 
Everybody has a better mousetrap.

Problem is, some people just prefer their mouse mazes and cheese-bit incentives.
 
Republicans are actively working against ranked choice voting.

Two states have banned RCV so far in 2024, while active bills in six other states that would ban RCV, or create a ballot question to do so, have passed one chamber of a legislature, including in five states with Republican trifectas. In Kentucky, the Kentucky General Assembly successfully overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto on April 12 to adopt HB44. In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed HB3156 on April 29.
Click to expand...

Where is RCV used?
 
dkovic77 said:
They have such a narrow grip on facts so they have to hold whatever advantage they can. They are desperate, why else do they have their current standard-bearer?
Click to expand...

Republicans go on and on about draining the swamp and demanding change, but they outlaw a voting change that empowers voters.
 
MajorRewrite said:
Republicans go on and on about draining the swamp and demanding change, but they outlaw a voting change that empowers voters.
Click to expand...
Well, if it empowers “their voters”. Nod nod, wink wink.

They are for it. But all voters, slow your roll!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Ranked-choice voting
Replies
5
Views
57
nowisthetime
nowisthetime
M
What’s your platform?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
MajorRewrite
M
RobDownSouth
Ann Selzer predicts Iowa going for..........Kamala Harris?
2
Replies
37
Views
846
lessOHmo
L
Rightguide
You're Never Going To Get Them back
4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
2K
ll74
ll74
P
The long, strange desclension of Republican presidents
2 3
Replies
66
Views
1K
Politruk
P
Back
Top