Comment

FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

Ranked choice is still better though… scale doesn’t really matter here, the point is to let people vote for who they want, not for who they think might win.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Saleh@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
On that level you often only have two, one or sometimes no candidate.

There is no need to enforce a more complicated system that needs to be explained to everyone, risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted or invalidating their vote by misunderstanding the rules.

I have helped with elections in Germany where the parliament has two votes. One for the local candidate FPTP and one for a party, where the parties proportional rates are then assembled in the parliament. I had to explain people the votes and what they do all the time. Because the two votes are on one paper it is a mess to count, as you can’t just stack them easily because of the possible combinations.

When it gets to state and national levels having proportional systems for parliaments and ranked choice for single candidates i am all for it. But there is no point in pushing for a more complicated system for smaller elections.

source
- Zexks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  It’s not anymore complicated. This is the exact argument that got it banned in my state. Because some people think we’re too stupid to count to 2. No if there are only 2 candidates you vore for one or the other and if you really want to be special you can rank them even if it won’t matter. This is not a difficult concept.
  
  source
- Bravo@eviltoast.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  or sometimes no candidate
  
  How does FPTP help in that scenario?
  
  risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted
  
  Can you describe how that might happen?
  
  source
- FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah that makes sense. I guess once people get used to ranked voting in large elections, then you could have it in small elections too. Thanks for the reply.
  
  source