You're viewing a single thread.
We need ranked choice voting, so you can vote for who you actually support without throwing your vote away.
Which will never happen because the Republicans are dead set on never changing any system in any way that's not directly in their benefit and no one else's. Until that moment arrives, which is never, the only option is to pick your particular flavour of straight-up fascism (Republicans these days) or anything else (Democrats) in the party primaries.
Don't fool yourself. The DNC also doesn't want ranked choice voting. Neither party wants any competition. The entire system is built to make it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win. Unless they actually hit 270+, even if they were a clear majority winner, they wouldn't be elected.
The local Democratic party literally opposes the ranked choice voting bill on my local ballot. So do the Republicans surprise surprise. They agreed on something! Bipartisanship!
One of the few advantages of our splintered system of states is that voting is done on a state level. We can implement ranked-choice voting in states where Republicans are weak, and in doing so, allow states that aren't filled with fascists to choose between multiple non-fascist ideologies, instead of just fascists and 'whoever is left'.
The dnc also doesn't want ranked choice voting. Even worse, if you managed to pass rcv in a heavily left state, it would only end up muddling up the waters on votes in house and senate, where the amount of Republicans would stay the same, but democrats and third parties would be sharing what used to be just democrats.
I like coalitions.
Ever since reading about some strange properties of RCV -- which ended up being displayed in Alaska's first election using it and caused it to be repealed in Vermont -- I've been a bit suspect of it. Systems such as STAR voting and approval voting seem better.
That's not strange, that's how it works. Especially if there's a strong 'anyone but Palin' contingent.
Star and approval look fucking terrible and is way out of line of the 'one person one vote' system we have and I think we want.
*For anyone wondering about Alaska, there were two Republicans, including Palin, and one Democrat running for house seat. The other Republican was eliminated in ranked choice. Essentially his votes split to both the Dem and Palin, instead of all going to Palin like the Palin people wanted, and the Democrat won. So the GOP there is now mad.
The GOP was maybe mad, but more importantly to me the people who actually study voting systems for a living were "mad", and the people who hurt their favored candidate by voting for them were likely upset.
Ignoring that the outcome was maybe what I would have wanted, it is definitely pathological that you can hurt a candidate by voting for them. Quoting the Wikipedia:
The election was also a negative voting weight event, where a voter's ballot has the opposite of its intended effect (e.g. a candidate being disqualified for having "too many votes"). In this race, Begich lost as a result of 5,200 ballots ranking him ahead of Peltola; Peltola also would have lost if she had received more support from Palin voters.
What do you find wrong with those other systems? RCV is also not "one person one vote". Approval voting is used in the UN and neither seem to have some of the pathologies of RCV.
Bit of a late edit here, but isn't "one person one vote" basically the description of our current problem with voting? All of these systems are trying to solve that issue.