The Ohio HoR just overwhelming voted to remove all state funding from any city that implements ranked choice voting. It threatens the parties in power, so they are both eager to stomp it out
Comment on [deleted]
GuyFawkes@midwest.social 1 month ago
Can anyone explain to me why a BAN was even needed? If a State is FPTP that’s the way it is; why do they need to say a different way is not allowed? Especially because of that different way were to actually be viable enough to become law it would just be a one two step - repeal the old, then institute the new.
BakerBagel@midwest.social 1 month ago
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
The link gives some arguments. It’s mostly stupid right wing claptrap.
Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.
It goes on to giving statements for those reasons from such respectable organizations as The Heritage Foundation, so do what you want with that.
chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m an opponent of RCV for none of those reasons.
No, I hate it because it’s deeply flawed and provides zero of the benefits that proponents claim it does.
Rather than help third parties, it actually hurts them.
The inventor of the system, created it as an example of a bad voting system. This was in 1790.
There’s far more ballot spoilage when compared to any other system.
It doesn’t eliminate the spoiler effect, just kicks it down the ballot a bit,
It’s confusing to count, which has led to the wrong candidate being sworn in.
It requires centralized counting, which is a single point of failure or attack.
And finally there are better, simpler systems that actually do the things that RCV proponents claim RCV
fubarx@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Alaska passed it. The election results didn’t go as expected. Everyone in one party (guess) freaked out and started passing bans nationwide.
They tried to repeal RCV in Alaska too, but it failed by a slim count even after 100:1 repeal money advantage. They’ll probably try again: alaskapublic.org/…/alaskas-ranked-choice-repeal-m…
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nope, the “No” campaign (keeping ranked choice voting) outspent the campaign to repeal ranked choice voting by 100:1, largely with out of state money.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I just read about it. Apparantly, most voters preferred the republican Begich over other 2 candidates and Begich is the Condorcet winner, so I could see why they’d be upset at the result.
chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fun fact, Condorcet is the inventor of RCV, and threw it out because it almost never produces the Condorcet winner.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 month ago
rcv would threaten gop stranglehold on a state, also would negate certain things like voter suppression toa certain extent.
Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Because they don’t believe in choice, freedom, or even democracy. They merely support the ideal and facilitate the illusion.
Anything that empowers voters to either dilute the two-party hegemony (where both parties are accountable to the same pool of donors) or elect party members that haven’t been carefully vetted by insiders is a threat to entrenched power structures. Adding roadblocks now ensures that transitions to better systems are made impossible via peaceful and lawful means.
GuyFawkes@midwest.social 1 month ago
To be fair I’m really starting to get tired of “peaceful and lawful means”, solely because it’s being used to trample our rights.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
They don’t want sub-divisions of the State (cities/towns) to implement RCV in their local elections. Probably to avoid the idea to spread. It like Democracy/Republicanism. When the French god rid of their monarchy, all the monarchs of nearby countries were afraid the sentinment would spread, same thing here.
GuyFawkes@midwest.social 1 month ago
That makes a lot of (unfortunate) sense, other than Kelly approving it (I’m in Kansas). I’ll need to dig in more and make sure it wasn’t just a veto overridden by the Republican supermajorities, or else wasn’t a poison pill attached to must have legislation.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1781139
Blue State Republicans are usually more “liberal” than Red State Democrats. State politics and Federal politics are different.