My city had ranked choice voting implemented by Democrats in the 1970s. They elected the first black mayor, who is still one of our most beloved mayors in the city's history, under RCV.
Then Republicans made it illegal at a state level when they had a trifecta. Democrats keep introducing bills at the state level to allow RCV, and Republicans take more and more drastic action against it. So yeah... I want more Democrats in my state government so we can have RCV.
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn't a "Dems" problem, it's a two party problem.
Even if state and local elections are ranked choice, the presidential election will still be a first past the post election and the electoral college is still designed for a two party system.
Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren't hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn't a "Dems" problem, it's a two party problem.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
The point is, if the Democratic party never plan to address it, then how will it ever get done through voting Dem? The same goes for all the other issues people claim we should ignore in the name of "vote blue no matter who", including their genocide.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.
Alaska's top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.
Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.
But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.
Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.
TL;DR: I'll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.
Kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America
Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.
oh yes the standard reply.
Rs actively tearing it down like in Alaska
Ds putting forth a bill to do it but only started by three of them this time around
"both sides are the same!"
yawn
Did you even read what I wrote?
Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.
The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.
So three of the more than 250 elected democrats are trying, not for the first time by the way, to get the rest of their party to take it seriously. Talk to me when more than 2% of the Democrats do something about it because otherwise its basically just a platitude.
Meaningful RCV implementation and meaningful gun control in the US are like talking about alien contact. Fun to talk about, but it's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
Bills are often started by one or a few people to get voted on by others. It will be resisted, but not by the side that would do well with a ranked choice with other left-sided third parties.
New York City established Ranked Choice voting in 2020 under a Dem Mayor and majority Dem City Council.
Alaska has a Republican Governor along with a Republican Majority in the house and Senate, they have no restrictions on abortion.
Does this mean the Republican party is pro-choice or that by voting Republican we can secure abortion rights? The answer is no.
Does this mean that by voting Republican we can secure abortion rights? The answer is no.
Actually, by your own post, in Alaska it does.
Isn't what they established in Alaska thanks in large part to democrats???
Edit: lol, seeing a lot of downvotes but I'm not seeing anybody refuting it either. Feel free to prove me wrong of course!
I guess the reason they won't is to avoid the "there's 5 different left parties" meme moment.
No, and it's stupid to suggest they would.
I bet dems would be more open to ranked choice if more people voted for third parties, because as long as the population believes they must vote Democrat or Republican and no one else, neither of those parties have any incentive to change. If lesser evilism stops getting people to vote for the two ruling parties, then there would be incentive for them to change. Short of that you're relying on politicians to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing, which is a fools game.
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
Someone's unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn't make an ineffective solution the answer.
The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:
If a solution doesn't have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn't matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.
Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.
Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.
The Dems will preserve a political model that's at least malleable. 3rds will need to work together to push ranked choice more and more into voters' field of view.
Republicans will swan-dive into fascism, in which case 3rds (and everyone else) are fucked.
Dems aren't going to help 3rds directly, but any one who wants the possibility of a 3rd party victory later is committing political suicide by failing to vote blue as a means of buying time. Voting 3rd when that 3rd has no potential for victory is self-destructive.
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable.
Much like during covid when they gave preferential treatment to themselves while simultaneously working to remove the Green party from ballots.
-More to the point your comment runs contrary to reality and the very nature of the joke pointed out in the meme.
...and a swan-dive into fascism is preferable to that because...?
Our political model is janky as fuck. I don't need to explain the pitfalls of a two-party system to you - I already know you fucking hate it or you wouldn't be eyeing a 3rd in the first place. I hate it too. But a two party system is what we have, which means you have three options:
Red (fascism)
Blue (not fascism)
Let the other voters choose Red or Blue for you (abstain or vote 3rd).
Which of those options will do the best job of accomplishing YOUR goals?
What even are your goals? 3rd party as POTUS? You gotta lay the groundwork first. 2016 was the perfect stage for a 3rd party victory within our current model: we had an absolutely hated candidate running on both of the big two; a voterbase just as sick of the status quo as they are now; a Libertarian with a genuinely likable personality, some solid policy stances, and who managed to shift the "crazy" that Libertarians were reputed for to an honestly charming variety of "quirky", and a surprisingly steady stream of coverage by the media. We will never see better conditions for a 3rd victory in our current model.
So how did the Libertarians do with that perfect storm? 3%. They got fucking 3% of the vote. How do those conditions compare to today's? Red is running that same hated sack of shit Trump; but Blue couldn't find a candidate hated as much as Hillary if they tried to - to the contrary, Harris is churning up optimism like I've never seen before. The die-hard Reds and Blues aren't going to change their votes over that, but the folks in the middle are going to be far less inclined to vote 3rd than they were in 2016. 3rds have gotten pretty much zero media attention this time around. They literally do not stand a chance to beat even 2016's 3%, let alone enough to actually win.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that's more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection... that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don't do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it's game over for everyone except the fascists.
If you see a different option that'll lead to a 3rd victory in our current model, I'm all ears; but if not, you still need to set the stage with favorable conditions, to include preventing the stage from being burned to the ground.
