politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ribbit
Lack of voting is one problem, but the overarching problem is how we select our representatives. We have a two party system with winner takes all elections which cements the two party system. You pretty much have to vote for one party or the other otherwise you're essentially throwing away your vote. Personally, I think a system like ranked choice would be an improvement. At least then you could vote your conscience, and if your first choice doesn't make it then your vote goes towards your 2nd, 3rd, etc. A system like that should produce a result that is closer to the ideological center of the voters.
Ribbit
You have to vote to change all that too. You think people would?
I think if you crack open a history book you'll find that the vast, VAST majority of changes did not come about by voting. Historically it hasn't done much at all, actually.
I think that shows you don't know much about history.
Lol. Okay.
Oh no, now they’re burning cars! Why don’t they just vote? As if they aren’t already doing that.
Ranked Choice is about the worst voting system designed. Possible only beaten by Plurality.
This 3-hour long video goes pretty in depth on why it's horrendously bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzK3YIAf8
The TLDR is that Ranked Choice is complex, meaning that it cannot be counted at the polling location. It must be counted at a single location, which is a single point of failure. This has led to real world failures in the 2011 Alameda County election and the 2021 NYC Mayoral Election.
Note that these were direct failures that were only possible under Ranked Choice.
Then there are cases like the 2009 Burlington Mayoral election that resulted in the repeal of their Ranked Choice election laws.
Which is the main issue I have with the system. It's so bad that it actually sets voting reform efforts back. It makes it that much harder to implement an actually good voting system.
I am currently recommending STAR. It's easy to understand because everyone knows how 5-star reviews work. It's easy to count, because it's just addition, and then a second round of addition. It can be counted at the polling locations, so there's no single point of failure.
Australia chiming in here. I'd encourage you to dive into how counting works over here.
I've worked at poling places several times.
We have ranked choice voting. Always have as far as I know.
We definitely undertake a first count at the poling place. It is then send to a hub location and verified, then if close enough it is recounted.
For many poling places there is a large clear majority so the ranked choices do not impact the outcome.
For those that are close, there are many recounts with a significant amount of redundancy and scrutiny.
I remember watching tutorial videos from the Australian Electoral Commission when I started, not sure if they are publicly available but they would be a great starting point for you!
.
I know that the counting can be better. However, that wouldn't fix what happened in Burlington.
That case is an example of how fucked the system is when everything is working as intended. The result was so bad that Burlington repealed their Ranked Choice law, because in that election, Plurality would have given a better result.
It really says something about a system when Plurality can do a better job.
Then there's the fact that Ranked Choice doesn't actually get rid of the spoiler effect, or really encourage the growth of viable third parties. Which are the two major claims about the system.
And the very worst part of the system, ballot exhaustion. Imagine that you're only allowed to rank 5 candidates and there are a dozen in the running. Now imagine that your 2nd through 5th choices are eliminated before your 1st choice is. At the 6th round, you might as well not have cast a ballot, but if your 1st choice was eliminated first, one of your other choices could have won.
Ballot exhaustion means that an average of 10% of the vote is just thrown away. Those people's opinions don't matter, they might as well have not voted at all.
Elections in the states are often won by less than 10%. I can say with certainty that RCV has elected the wrong people, time after time.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=O-dzK3YIAf8
https://piped.video/watch?v=O-dzK3YIAf8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
A huge chunk of Trump supporters never voted before he ran, watch out for what you wish for.
That was also how Bush won in 2004. He expanded the electorate. There was also a bunch of other crap going on, but that was crucial to his win.
Check turnout. Even in presidential elections, we rarely get more than 1/3 of the eligible voters to actually cast a ballot.
Voting doesn’t matter when your only choices are bevis and butt head. That is by design.
Ribbit
if one could vote without being signed up for a lot of ancillary bullshit, more people would vote. I personally am not registered to vote in the state I live in because I dont want anything to do with the jury system.