November Could Determine Future of Ranked Choice Voting in US Elections
November Could Determine Future of Ranked Choice Voting in US Elections
Arizona, Nevada, and other western states, plus D.C., will determine the future of ranked choice voting.
You're viewing a single thread.
I like the idea of ranked choice voting but it’s not perfect.
Corporate dems and republicans can and will unite together to support each other rather than progressives or other third parties
I'm banning you, not because this comment is wrong, although it is. I looked at your history, and you're clearly a one-note trumpet.
- Kamala Harris = Gaza
- ACA = bad, Obama = bad
- "neoliberals"
- "blue maga"
I stopped reading at that point, which was about halfway down the page. Take it somewhere else.
What's wrong about their comment?
It seems to be implying that ranked choice voting is going to be defeated or weakened by Democrats and Republicans banding together to defeat anything progressive. The words sounds right, and scan together coherently, and this combined with a bunch of other messages can lead someone through constant repetition to an overall vague impression that Democrats = bad, but it doesn't actually make any sense.
When are Democrats and Republicans going to band together? Have they done that to unseat Bernie Sanders, or are they unified in opposing Jill Stein and making sure to keep her out of power? The current administration of Republicans doesn't want it to be legal for Democrats to win elections at all. They're not suddenly going to be okay with the idea of handing over power to a D because there's a third party in the race.
Even if they did unite to defeat a progressive, how would that work under an RCV system? The whole idea of RCV is that you can vote for a third party without the math underlying FPTP elections making it impossible for them to win. The Ds and Rs can unite around their common corporate candidate, and then the third-party person is basically running against that person, and the majority vote-getter is going to win, unlike now where you have a choice of two corporate candidates and that's functionally it. Isn't that... better?
Just posting a comment that I think is wrong, I don't have a problem with. It was only when I looked back at their history and found that it's all "no Democrats" all the time and more or less nothing else that I decided they were some breed of misinformation and could go.
Ah, I see. I interpreted it as two independent statements because your interpretation didn't make sense. But now that I think about it, it looks like they did mean it in the incorrect way.
Especially when put in the context of everything else they have to say.
The single comment alone would have irked me but I wouldn't have banned them just for the one statement alone. I probably just would have said something. The pattern of commenting to always lead to one particular conclusion, and that conclusion coincidentally lining up with probably the number 1 active form of disinformation on the internet right now, means GTFO.
I'm not sure that a user's comment history should be banworthy.
There are dozens of accounts on Lemmy that almost exclusively focus on tying any particular topic that's being discussed back around to why the Democrats are bad. This person is one of them.
Ranked Choice voting? Democrats and Republicans are basically the same, they're your enemy.
Kamala Harris did good in her interview? She's in Israel's pocket.
Obama said something? The ACA was awful.
I have no idea what this person's deal is, but I don't really care. If you want good politics things, then LFG, that's what this community is for. If you want to behave like a Heritage Foundation paid social media influence operation, I'm going to treat you accordingly. I think most of Lemmy's moderation teams are way too lenient on these chuckleheads.