|
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh.
|
On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh.
How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem.
The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost.
I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency
|
On November 13 2020 02:53 Zambrah wrote:
I single out Manchin as an example of a Democrat that basically isnt a Democrat, he would likely be an obstacle to things like statehood for PR and DC.
If we keep primarying him and losing, thats fine, thats the will of the people, but we should never stop trying. The point isnt to win in one shot the point is to make it clear that the Democrats are going to be primaried and need to step the fuck up.
Your argument is based entirely on the idea that we can only do one thing at once, its basically whataboutism.
We can target the Republican senators, and we can target the Democrat senators, we can educate people about M4A and 15 dollar minimum wage, and unionization while we do so, there is nothing saying we can only do one thing at a time.
Manchin is already a gun loaded at our foot, I'd rather make him worry for his seat than let him sit in the corner and threaten to fire into our feet over shit like PR and DC statehood and M4A with complete safety.
I have repeated time and time again we will not win every election. We don't need to, we just need to apply pressure where we can, win the seats we win and use those seats as leverage.
Also Manchin is an incumbent and extremely familiar to West Virginians with the backing of the DNC money machine, he, like every entrenched DNC congressperson, is always going to be an uphill battle and saying its exclusively on policy is ignoring the huge systematic advantages that they're going to receive.
Manchin is fine. He's no liberal, but he's not really super conservative. There's a chart out there showing progressiveness relative to state/district, and Manchin is one of the highest value politicians for democrats.
Even if he voted down the line with the GOP, if he voted against McConnell as majority leader then he'd be valuable - and he doesn't break with the party nearly as much as you might think.
He did say he would compromise on the filibuster if McConnell began abusing it - which is a pretty good statement for progressives. A 50/50 senate, is at, most, going to reform the filibuster and maybe give PR (but not DC) statehood. That's really not on Manchin - there are at least four or five other senators who would be reluctant to vote for such broad changes, even if they also wouldn't vote against them.
He's also not as economically conservative as he is socially - this makes him a good target for some economic reforms. Negatives are that he's from a coal funded state, so he's a very hard get for the green new deal. He's infinitely better than a republican in the seat would be on any topic, though.
Throwing some mild shade at him on twitter (as AOC has been doing) is fine (hell it probably helps him in WV), but there's no need to primary him. He's not Lieberman (who was a conservative from a pretty blue state).
If you want to change the party, you're better off primarying Feinstein or Schumer (I've read that there are rumors that AOC will primary Schumer).
538 has a pretty good metric for this (though it's HIGHLY simplified and I prefer their old PPI metric - this one leads to some amusing results like AOC being one of the better democrats for Trump vs how her district would expect her to vote), Trump Plus Minus (how often they vote with Trump vs expected for a politician from their district).
Manchin is the 3rd best for Democrats. Only Doug Jones and Jon Tester outperform him on this metric.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
Leahy, Schumer, Schatz, Feinstein, and Cardin are the best senator pickoffs for primaries. Sinema is probably too Trump leaning as well, but is a first term senator still, in a state that has very rapidly shifted from red to purple.
On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh.
We have it in Maine. MA and AK turned it down in this election.
|
On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory.
Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes.
With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes.
However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big.
|
United States43971 Posts
On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency
It works well. You count all the first choice. Whoever comes last on the first choice is eliminated and the people who voted for them first are treated as if they voted for their second choice. Repeat until winner.
The only issue is when you have a very popular second choice party who get no first choice votes.
|
On November 13 2020 04:18 RenSC2 wrote:
The thing is, you’re not even close to the first time I have heard of Manchin and it always starts as an attack from the left sometimes followed by a defense from the moderates.
I had to look up Capito because I had never heard of her. Manchin and Capito are elected by the exact same voter base. Why would anyone on the left target Manchin while being consistently quiet about Capito? Capito was even up for election this time while Manchin is another 4 years out. Still, the attacks are always against Manchin. He’s almost as big of a boogeyman as McConnell.
If I was a Rupert Murdoch type, I would love to push the Manchin attacks on social media and in left leaning rags I own. The constant attacks on him weaken his position and help to unseat him (in favor of another Republican) despite the incumbent advantage that he has. Meanwhile, the attacks also give so much cover for Capito and other Republicans in Republican leaning states to fly under the radar as the default.
The left sure likes to cannibalize itself and make sure that it has no allies. Sometimes I wonder if that is by design and that the people on the left are being manipulated by the corporatist people they are supposedly fighting against.
Machin is brought up because he recently did an interview vowing not to vote for any progressive policy.
And the left is aggressive towards the Democrats because, if you havent noticed, the first thing Democrats will go after is always the left, they're the ones with the power, theyre the party that should have to go after the Republicans, but the Democrats that fight the left are like fuckin' Mike Tyson sometimes, and the Democrats the fight the Republicans are Glass Joe.
First thing that happened after the election as over was a bunch of Democrats had a call and declared that this disastrous election was due to the left and BLM. Despite progressives not having issues in their races, and despite plenty of progressive policy being independently passed, their takeaway was "left made me lose!" Some of the interviews about this are pathetic, they're conservative Democrats who lost, say they made it clear they weren't for BLM and universal healthcare, but that these two issues are why they lost.
If Democrats wanted to act like allies they have PLENTY of opportunities but their first line is usually one of attack.
They could learn from Stacey Abrams, or AOC, or Ilhan Omar, or Rashida Tlaib, but they're so much more comfortable changing nothing and either blaming outside forces, or believing "theres nothing we could do!" It's pathetic. We need more and better than that, Republicans are everything that Democrats are not and while that is often used to vile effect it is used to effect.
I dont know what else to do to get Democrats to MOVE LEFT aside from making it clear that the left is coming for them so they better adopt leftist policies or get primaried and maybe lose.
Because let me ask, when everyone was saying, "stop putting down Biden! We have to let him win and THEN we push him left!" what were people thinking with that? (I didnt so much see it here, but its been said so many times elsewhere) What leverage do we now have over Joe Biden? Hes basically completely unaccountable at this point.
Anyways, I focus on Democrats because Republicans are either unchanging, or already going to be targetted by the Democrats. I don't need any real new arguments about Republicans, same plan, grass roots organization, talk to people on the ground, etc. If the progressive wins their primary then its vs. Republicans, but imo their biggest obstacle is vs. the Democrats since my aforementioned perception about the different levels of fighting skill Democrats display based on who they're fighting.
|
Bisutopia19344 Posts
On November 12 2020 21:55 Zambrah wrote:
BisuDagger manages to be completely reasonable while being conservative, I believe Flash may also classify himself as a conservative, either way theyre also completely reasonable. Sermokala is also a reasonable conservative imo.
I may disagree with Bisus fiscal conservatism, as an example, but he’s at least open to talking about it in a way that isn’t extremely obtuse, and he doesn’t assert contentious things as facts.
Thanks! Throughout everyone's life time I think we all go back and forth on issues where we side with liberals or conservatives. As a teenager, I thought abortion wasn't a big deal and was totally cool with women's choice. But now that I have a family, I'm very much against abortion for anything other then medical reasons or special circumstances like rape. And I'm sure over time I'll experience things and hear other views that might evolve my opinion of that further. I was also pro death penalty for a long time, but now I just value life from a whole new perspective where I don't believe the death penalty is the right solution. Again, there may be circumstances where I convince otherwise so I do my best to keep an open mind. Nothing I know is black and white and therefore I will never assert my opinion as the right one over anyone else's, but instead I just to share it as best I can. I had a girlfriend once who was a die-hard liberal who talked about how open minded liberals are and in the same paragraph told me she would break up with me if I was a conservative. I use her as a reminder that saying you are part of an open minded group is not the same as keeping an open mind. I do my best to do the latter. All this being said, it's why I always say fiscal conservative, because my point of view on social issues has changed so much, how I can ever know what I believe is the right point of view on a social issue.
|
On November 13 2020 06:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. We have it in Maine. MA and AK turned it down in this election.
I think you need to implement it federally though. If a blue or red state adds it in they weaken their own political power while gaining nothing since the system doesn't fundamentally change. It's the same issue as proportional electors.
|
On November 13 2020 08:16 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2020 21:55 Zambrah wrote:
BisuDagger manages to be completely reasonable while being conservative, I believe Flash may also classify himself as a conservative, either way theyre also completely reasonable. Sermokala is also a reasonable conservative imo.
I may disagree with Bisus fiscal conservatism, as an example, but he’s at least open to talking about it in a way that isn’t extremely obtuse, and he doesn’t assert contentious things as facts. I had a girlfriend once who was a die-hard liberal who talked about how open minded liberals are and in the same paragraph told me she would break up with me if I was a conservative. I use her as a reminder that saying you are part of an open minded group is not the same as keeping an open mind.
Liberals made a huge mistake when they framed opposition to conservatism as tolerance vs intolerance, imo. They should have gone for rationality instead.
Like, the reason why I'm fine with gay people or muslims isn't because I'm tolerant, it's because there's nothing wrong with them. There is nothing for me to tolerate there. It doesn't demand an effort of me to be okay with people who have a different background, and hopefully it doesn't demand an effort of most liberals... so the way the worldview is being described is flawed.
Because of that when liberals take issue with a specific worldview they can then be branded as hypocrites for being intolerant, and it's... kind of true, honestly, I guess. But I think most of the hypocrisy was in the first description of tolerance, rather than in that tolerance not being extended to conservatives.
I'm more on the side of intolerance, clearly. I like when things make sense to me, if you don't I'm probably going to try and argue with you at some point. Just reading your post I already wanted to say something about your abortion comment when it doesn't have anything to do with my answer... oh well ^^'
|
On November 13 2020 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory. Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes. With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes. However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big.
But if those people are conservative then what's the loss? You've made each party clearly define what is they actively stand for, rather than trying to define each party by what they stand against.
One of the issues with FPTP is that it leads to 2 parties. If either of those parties show weakness they die almost immediately(see the Whigs collapsing in the slavery battle from 1 federal election to the next). With multiple parties available you aren't forced to have such a big tent approach to party politics and can evolve positions over time. Instead, with so many groups to cater to, you can't please them all and your best approach is to intimidate them into voting for you through fear of the other party.
Most people voting Republican don't really like the Republicans. Most people voting Democrat don't really like the Democrats.
If you implemented RCV then you would have a 3rd, 4th, 5th party maybe.
I could envision a Progressive party, a Moderate party, a Farm-Labour party, etc. forming out of the Democrat base that could each serve their constituents much better than the Democrats can.
Similarly, the Republicans could be split into Evangelicals, Neocons, Alt-right or reactionary(yes, this would probably be a party), etc. that would be better served by the split.
You would also avoid the need for such dramatic intra party loyalty, so that someone like Trump can't be protected out of sheer party loyalty by 51 Senators, for example.
|
On November 13 2020 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory. Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes. With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes. However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big.
Your scenario, in which there are 3 parties and the new party would win the plurality vote because of "conservative" votes being split between democratic and republican, but would lose the ranked voting election, is quite the edge case.
|
Bisutopia19344 Posts
On November 13 2020 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 08:16 BisuDagger wrote:On November 12 2020 21:55 Zambrah wrote:
BisuDagger manages to be completely reasonable while being conservative, I believe Flash may also classify himself as a conservative, either way theyre also completely reasonable. Sermokala is also a reasonable conservative imo.
I may disagree with Bisus fiscal conservatism, as an example, but he’s at least open to talking about it in a way that isn’t extremely obtuse, and he doesn’t assert contentious things as facts. I had a girlfriend once who was a die-hard liberal who talked about how open minded liberals are and in the same paragraph told me she would break up with me if I was a conservative. I use her as a reminder that saying you are part of an open minded group is not the same as keeping an open mind. Liberals made a huge mistake when they framed opposition to conservatism as tolerance vs intolerance, imo. They should have gone for rationality instead. Like, the reason why I'm fine with gay people or muslims isn't because I'm tolerant, it's because there's nothing wrong with them. There is nothing for me to tolerate there. It doesn't demand an effort of me to be okay with people who have a different background, and hopefully it doesn't demand an effort of most liberals... so the way the worldview is being described is flawed. Because of that when liberals take issue with a specific worldview they can then be branded as hypocrites for being intolerant, and it's... kind of true, honestly, I guess. But I think most of the hypocrisy was in the first description of tolerance, rather than in that tolerance not being extended to conservatives. I'm more on the side of intolerance, clearly. I like when things make sense to me, if you don't I'm probably going to try and argue with you at some point. Just reading your post I already wanted to say something about your abortion comment when it doesn't have anything to do with my answer... oh well ^^'
To see the word abortion and show restraint on the topic is a huge sign of conversational maturity lol. Anyway, I really like the way you phrased your reply and completely agree. Well done.
|
On November 13 2020 08:51 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory. Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes. With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes. However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big. Your scenario, in which there are 3 parties and the new party would win the plurality vote because of "conservative" votes being split between democratic and republican, but would lose the ranked voting election, is quite the edge case.
It's why Maine has it. They elected the proto Trump 2x with a very low plurality of the vote ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage , 37%) due to independents and democrats splitting the vote.
(Drug dealers) are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty; these types of guys, they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road.
|
CISA an agency around Cybersecurity of the U.S government, has been releasing information around "fake news", and "voter fraud".
https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol
The director Chris Krebs has also mentioned he thinks he will be fired soon for his posting. I've gone ahead and started to repost the website across a few of my social media accounts to try and combat the dis information.
|
On November 13 2020 09:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 08:51 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 13 2020 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory. Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes. With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes. However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big. Your scenario, in which there are 3 parties and the new party would win the plurality vote because of "conservative" votes being split between democratic and republican, but would lose the ranked voting election, is quite the edge case. It's why Maine has it. They elected the proto Trump 2x with a very low plurality of the vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage , 37%) due to independents and democrats splitting the vote. Show nested quote + (Drug dealers) are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty; these types of guys, they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road.
I know it can happen, and I agree with the concept ranked voting. It's just I find the left tends to split itself more often than the right, as your example might atest.
In any case, I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say, that the US current doesn't have a relevant 3rd party AND doesn't have ranked voting AND in any case the ranked voting would be working as intended if the situation came to happen, so the whole scenario isn't something to be worried about.
Of ways to implement ranked voting, I'm a fan of the condorcet method (comparing the voting totals head-to-head), because it works in every scenario, except one in which candidate A beats B, B beats C and C beats A (but if that happens your society is pretty much nuts anyway).
|
|
|
I knew that from day 1 of this campaign spam. It literally says it in his privacy policy, terms of use, whatever else they require him to add.
|
United States43971 Posts
On November 13 2020 08:32 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 06:55 Nevuk wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. We have it in Maine. MA and AK turned it down in this election. I think you need to implement it federally though. If a blue or red state adds it in they weaken their own political power while gaining nothing since the system doesn't fundamentally change. It's the same issue as proportional electors.
States run their own elections. But yeah, I think they should pair off and make agreements with each other to split electors. California and Texas both agreeing to assign their votes in proportion to the votes in their state for example.
|
The strong legal mind of Trump's senior law adviser. Why can't Biden prove he won the election? I mean yeah ok, there is the tiny detail of Biden having the most votes, but what does that mean really in 2020 where you can make shit up as you please? Where is the proof!!!11
|
On November 13 2020 09:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 08:51 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 13 2020 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 13 2020 06:51 Slydie wrote:On November 13 2020 06:38 WarSame wrote:
Since this is kind of the new US Politics Thread, I would like to toss in that ranked ballots are your best way out of the jam.
In Canada we generally have a philosophy that after 2 terms in power (~8-10 years) the party has become entrenched and must be thrown out, or corruption will spread. This leads to us seeing a decent rotation of LPC and CPC, as well as elections with the smaller parties doing well.
In America, this doesn't really happen since so much of the establishment is carried over, and since the economic powerhouses have their hands in both pies, so there's no refresh possible.
By enabling ranked ballots(or other reforms) there would be too many parties for this to happen to all of them, especially with some smaller ones holding the balance of power, so you would be able to refresh. How would ranked ballots even work in a FPTP system? IMO, how FPTP by nature practically forbids even a strong 3rd party is the root of the problem. The power shifts back and forth in the US as well. In recent times, triple control has only ever come in 2-year batches before it has been lost. I can see how 3rd and maybe even more parties can muscle their way into the US house in a way the LibDems have done on elections in the UK, but not really compete for power in the Senate or for the Presidency ranked ballots would allow a 3e party to exist in theory. Imagine the left right now. If a party forms to the left of the Democrats then neither will win an election is a remotely competitive state because their voters are split while the GOP picks up all the right wing votes. With ranked ballots you could vote for this new party further left as #1, and the Democrats as #2 for less 'wasted' votes. However in practice it would likely solve little and could even cause more harm. If the Democrats are bigger then the further left party likely nothing changes, but if the new party becomes bigger then Democrats voters go to their #2. And while a bunch of those would go to the new party I suspect a big bunch of more conservatives Democrats might put Republicans as their #2 (assuming their not Trump levels horrible) so the right gets bigger, the left and smaller and the left loses big. Your scenario, in which there are 3 parties and the new party would win the plurality vote because of "conservative" votes being split between democratic and republican, but would lose the ranked voting election, is quite the edge case. It's why Maine has it. They elected the proto Trump 2x with a very low plurality of the vote ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage , 37%) due to independents and democrats splitting the vote. Show nested quote + (Drug dealers) are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty; these types of guys, they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road.
This seems to indicate the way to get ranked choice voting is for Democrats to lose because they don't have it. But it would seem to fall into reformism if the result is to secure the status quo (the two major parties winning) and placate people (by letting them vote their conscience first, but still supporting Democrats ultimately).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
