Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Compare the divide: 1960s-70s to modern time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    Do you really think the average voter would understand ranked choice, and not simply be told how to "vote strategically" by slimy political operatives?
    It isn't that hard to understand, especially if people are used to dealing wit hballot papers that have multiple federal, state & local races on them. Many/most would probably just follow the party 'how to vote' card.

    Having spent my entire adult life voting in what you would call a ranked choice system (we call it preferential voting) I'm not convinced that the more common form would be quite the game changer I see it referred to as. That is why I liked the 'final five' idea I saw recently. It deals with one of the bigger issues - primaries pushing candidates to the right/left.

    Gehl designed a solution to repair the perverse incentives created by party primaries and plurality voting. Gehl's innovation, which she has termed Final Five Voting, combines top-five primaries with instant runoffs in the general election. The change 1) ends party primaries and creates open, nonpartisan primaries that send the top five vote-getters to the general election and 2) ends plurality voting with ranked-choice instant runoffs for those five candidates in the general election so a winner is chosen by a majority of voters.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...cs_145613.html
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #32
      It deals with one of the bigger issues - primaries pushing candidates to the right/left.
      much of this has to do with the US parties disintegrating as "gatekeepers", especially the Republican Party -- but, increasingly, the Dems as well.

      simply put, the party apparatus/elite simply don't have the legitimacy to tamp down the extremists anymore (see: Liz Cheney, Paul Ryan, Bushes, Romney, Boehner).

      the parties also don't control the funding spigots like they used to either, and in fact on the GOP side, disobeying the party leadership tends to -bring in- money.

      ranked choice voting helps, but can't resolve the situation by itself.

      in any case, absent a serious major breakthrough on HR1/SR1/filibuster, all of this is moot. I don't think Democrats understand how much danger they're in -- with the various state GOP shenanigans going on now, starting in 2 years' time, Democratic political power is about to get a serious gut-punch.

      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by astralis View Post

        in any case, absent a serious major breakthrough on HR1/SR1/filibuster, all of this is moot. I don't think Democrats understand how much danger they're in -- with the various state GOP shenanigans going on now, starting in 2 years' time, Democratic political power is about to get a serious gut-punch.
        That's what I don't understand. And they especially can't lose the House. You can't trust the McCarthys or Republican lawmakers in the House to do the lawful, Constitutional thing anymore. Does anyone not see a scenario, despite how far fetched it would've seemed even 2 years ago, where a Trumpublican-ran House won't certify an election loss in 2024? I just don't see how it doesn't come to that considering the party has consolidated around Trump.

        And even before that, it's going to be vindictiveness to get the Democrats back for impeaching Trump... twice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Biden get impeached for something no matter how far fetched the false equivalence goes. The Cult of Trump has no shame. And that's a dangerous attribute.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

          It isn't that hard to understand, ...
          Just to be clear, we are talking about "the average voter," right?
          The ones who gave us He Who Should Not Be Named, rather than the most qualified candidate in six elections, right?
          Those folks?
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DOR View Post

            Just to be clear, we are talking about "the average voter," right?
            The ones who gave us He Who Should Not Be Named, rather than the most qualified candidate in six elections, right?
            Those folks?
            Yep, those folk. The same one who fill out ballot papers much, much more complex than a standard ranked choice ballot paper almost every time they vote. Most Australians would recoil in horror at the ballot papers Americans routinely fill out.

            If it makes you feel any better, if they don't fill it out correctly the vote is invalid.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #36
              I don't think a paper ballot is very hard, and I don't think Rank Choice Voting is all that hard, but I also don't get confused by my relatively basic taxes that seem to befuddle so many Americans.
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment

              Working...
              X