• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.

    I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.

      Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.

      I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.

      As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.

        How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?

        Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)

          And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.

          Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

          Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.

          • venusaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.

            https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv

            https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog

            If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.

            You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).

              Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”

              People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.