Arguably, RCV is just as complicated as STAR, and approval is simpler than RCV. And part of the difficulty in the heavy lift to get RCV is that it has some pretty rough flaws, flaws that don't exist within the alternatives.
And the political environment is easing up to the idea of moving towards better voting methods. I'm not saying we should let perfection be the enemy of progress. All I am saying is that if we are going to be making changes, we should at least attempt the better options.
I absolutely agree with pushing the issue at a local level, however we should probably be aiming for approval or STAR voting:
https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/
RCV is way better than our current system, but even RCV has flaws.
We also need regulation requiring election reform within party primaries, because as of right now it is a clown show.
The prime directive is a great example of how even a good rule taken to the extreme can end up causing more harm than good.
But beyond that, it's just an easy aid for the writers to add a point of conflict for their stories. The prime directive as a value within the federation seems secondary to me.
The republican/right wing party attempted to overthrow an election. And they are unabashed about that. And somehow they still have a 3rd of the country still supporting them.
Is that not enough for us to qualify as having a real fascism problem?
Yeah, the NPVIC is… I mean, let’s be honest here. It’s not great. It’s better than our current system, absolutely.
Agreed.
But it’s far, far inferior than rank choice.
I'd say it goes like
Approval >>> Ranked >>>>>>>>>>>>> FPTP (popular vote) >>> FPTP (electoral college)
Agreed.
We would need election reform for that to change, and while we are getting closer to that state by state, I don’t think we will ever get enough states to sign on for the laws to kick in.
I assume you're talking about the NPVIC. But yeah, we are getting marginally closer to reform each year. And public sentiment towards FPTP voting is changing, which is good. The only downside is that it is slow, and people seem more keen on rank choice instead of approval (IMO the best).
And these changes will never happen with our current system in place, so it’s a catch 22. Can’t change the system without reform, can’t reform with our current system.
Honestly that's the case with most problems in the U.S., it's just a bunch of catch 22s the whole way down, and the whole way up.
Yeah, congress needs to be stacked with representatives that actually give a shit about protecting workers and democracy. And that's never going to happen with a 2 party system and legalize bribery ("lobbying").
And those things won't get fixed until people start giving a shit and voting accordingly, and/or we have massive protests.
I don’t think that’s a starter.
I wasn't being literal. There are a million things that need fixed, a few of them you've listed and I 100% agree with. The one I named was just one of them.
IIRC about 2/3rds of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That is not an economy that is working for the people.
We need dramatic overhauls that Biden, and especially Trump will never deliver. We need employee ownership of companies for starters.
nobody should use chatgpt to generate long rambly paragraphs complaining about nothing in particular with no point or ending or punctuation coupled with maildrop.cc as a temporary email
That, and a land tax
Agreed. And that's why I think approval is such a big improvement over ranked choice.
"Tell us who you approve of, candidate with the most approval wins"
Is a hell of a lot simpler than
"Rank every candidate without ranking multiple as the same level, then we check if any candidate has a 50% majority, if not, the lowest candidate gets booted and the next wave of second choices comes in, repeat until there is 50% majority."
And that's before the peripheral benefits.
Agreed. It's honestly sad.
My city/state has been warming up to these kinds of talks and candidates at least, which gives me a glimmer of hope. But for now it is not enough.