[deleted]
Is anybody surprised that you could replace the orange with red and have a pretty accurate election map?
[deleted]
Submitted 1 month ago by throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
Comments
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
GuyFawkes@midwest.social 1 month ago
In Kansas it surprises me that Kelly signed it; I’d be more inclined to believe that the Republican supermajorities pushed it past a veto.
ceenote@lemmy.world 1 month ago
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 month ago
seeing so many upvotes on this comment made my morning.
remember, we can plan anonymously online by posting plans in the form of if/then scenarios. example: if i were trying to put the richest american oligarchs in check, i would first need a list of who they are widely disseminated to the masses.
i’m not advocating that, i’m just saying IF that’s what i were trying to do, that’s how i would do it.
Bravo@eviltoast.org 1 month ago
i’m not advocating that
You don’t have to. Forbes already publishes a real-time up-to-date list of the richest people in the world.
www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#5b60b1453d…
It can be sorted by net worth, country of residence, industry the person made their fortune in, or age.
iglou@programming.dev 1 month ago
Nothing screams “democracy” like explicitely banning a voting system
nico198x@europe.pub 1 month ago
well, to be fair, shitty electoral systems should be banned, like FPTP, because they aren’t representative. what’s happening here is sadly the opposite.
iglou@programming.dev 1 month ago
It still shouldn’t be banned, it should be up for debate when picking a system. Explicitely banning a system is pretty much anti-democratic by nature.
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
FPTP is fine in many small scale applications. How should a town of 5,000 people elect their mayor otherwise?
w3dd1e@lemm.ee 1 month ago
In MO. Voted on it last year. The ballot was intentionally worded to be misleading.
It said each person can only cast one vote. Making it sound like it was to prevent people from voting twice even though that person as already not allowed.
So dumb.
BakerBagel@midwest.social 1 month ago
They just pulled that in the Ohio House this week. They have been calling it “One Person, One Vote” and are going to withhold state funds to any municipality that uses ranked choice voting. It passed our house 22-5 iirc
gaja@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendmen
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 month ago
At what point is a democracy not a democracy anymore?
Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
For the U.S., the decisive blow came with the Citizens United ruling, although it’s not unreasonable to suggest the refusal to punish Nixon during watergate signaled that the rule of law was merely a suggestion. That kicked off a whole cascade of political and legal maneuvering to get both the legislative and societal landscape into such a contortion that it would willingly hand away the entire nation to vulture-capitalists.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 month ago
A better question would be “when was there ever been a true democracy?”
For me, there hasn’t been. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. It means that we need to truly internalise that wealth and power will, if left unchecked, succeed in perverting it entirely. We need to be ever augmenting it, with that in mind, with a view to playing whack a mole with the interests of the 1% and keeping it working for the 99%.
I mean that won’t work either. The rich and powerful will never allow us to simply vote away their ill beggoten wealth and power. However, at least people could say that they tried.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I don’t think we’ll ever have a “true” democracy.
Its like the concept of “utopia”, you can get closer and closer, but never actually reach it
Like an asymptote in mathematics.
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
The US has never been a democracy, they’re just being more straightforward about it recently
Randelung@lemmy.world 1 month ago
People keep commenting this without context and it’s driving me mad. It’s factually wrong, so at least tell us what you mean in the figurative sense.
sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 1 month ago
- For Patriots and politicians: As long as there is democracy in the name (Democratic Republic of Korea)
- For decent people: As soon as the laws/choices the government produces are no longer what the average person would choose.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Sadly, some states, people voted against ranked-choice-voting in referendum. Seems lile people just hear a complex idea and want to shut it down because it challenged their simplistic worldview.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Not sure. Ancient societies also used FPTP and they are still considered by some Scholars/Historians as “democracy” 🤷♂️
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Personally, I think government systems are actually a type of technology. Unfortunately, they aren’t the kind of research where you can easily experiment and iterate upon, since people tend to die in massive numbers if the experiment fails.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The USA is too big to be a democracy. It would need to be several smaller regions/countries that had equal rights when dealing with each other. But its much easier to just force people to do what you want rather than make a mutually beneficial deal.
Hazor@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So, like, … maybe 50 or so smaller regions? And a few other mostly even smaller territories that don’t get those rights, just for funsies?
I joke, of course. But in seriousness: Are you suggesting the US just defederate and become more like, say, the EU? What are you anticipating that would solve? Moreover, what is it that makes it too big to be a democracy? Can large governments exist only in authoritarian forms? Why would that be?
drmoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Americans complain about the two party system and do absolutely nothing to change that. It’s like watching a soap opera but everyone’s fell of the horse and lost their memory.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s almost like those in power make the laws that are used to elect those in power 🤔
BmeBenji@lemm.ee 1 month ago
In Colorado last year RCV was on the ballot as part of an initiative. It was shot down easily because both parties campaigned against it. Not sure what to do when the weight of all incumbents is thrown against something
jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
In Colorado, one of my wife’s friends is what most people (I say this, knowing the Lemmy political scale is vastly different from most Americans) would consider super liberal. She’s also very outspoken and politically active, so she has no problems telling everyone she knows how to vote on every issue.
Last election, we were at her house and she mentioned that she was against ranked choice voting. When I asked her why, she pointed to her voting guide provided by the Colorado Democratic Party. She just blindly accepts that because the party says it’s bad, then it’s bad.
After seeing that, it wasn’t surprising to me when the proposition failed.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Lol go to r/conservative and you’ll see all those idiots having doublethink simultaneouly saying that they support term limits for congress and support for ranked-choice voting, yet continues to vote in conservatives that oppose the very policies they claim to support.
Its actually quite ridiculous. Republican legislators consistantly oppose raising the minimum wage or abortion, yet, the republican voters votes in favor of those policies, while simultaneously vote for the legislators that oppose them.
I’m just like… Why??? Do y’all vote like this? 🤦♂️
I think we should just go the Swiss-route and do direct democracy; representatives don’t even represent their constituents anymore.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I think we should just go the Swiss-route and do direct democracy;
That’s literally the Anarchy system. I.e Laws and no leaders.
As an Australian who has ranked choice (we call it preferential) it’s not the panecea folks here seem to think it is to bring about the enlightenment.
I’m 58, have voted in every election from when I was eligible through to this year. We don’t have ICE but we have Border Force and we routinely deport non citizens, we inspect digital devices at the border, we off shore legal refugees in internment camps, we have zero care for the enviorment and love penis shaped defence spending, we are a car dependent shit hole with few redeeming qualities… It’s ever been thus, Donad Horne oponed on this in the 1970s.
We don’t have feedom of the press or freedom of speech, so often these things are unable to even be reported on at all and our most egregious atrocities have widespread support amongst the broader population. In that respect its not as big a divisor as. n the US as we’re all arseholes :) We’re happy to allow religious scumbags to discriminate against LGBQT folks, happy to have our privacy removed, are quite fond of fucking over our indigenous peoples and the wider enviorment and near zero concern for exestential issues like climate change. We’re happy to shit over homeless people and have unaffordable housing and racism is broadly endemic.
We have never elected a government that i think is anything but objectively fucking horrible, we have our tongue firmly stuck up the US foreign policy asshole and follow them into every stupid dumb shit military action. We have had the occasionally decent poltican but then so does the US (Bernie etc) .
Like us, your people are broken and you’re not going to cure what ails ya’ with RCV.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I’m just like… Why??? Why do y’all vote like this?
Looks awkwardly at the voting history of every politician they have voted for…
Yeah. Those Republicans sure look silly rallying behind people who immediately betray them once in office.
Awkward cough.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
This may shock you, but there’s a lot of us. It’s not the same people doing both.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
It’s even worse than that - they don’t just “do absolutely nothing to change that”, they actively whip each other into line by loudly blaming third party voters for not giving them the votes that they somehow owe to their big money party.
MetalMachine@feddit.nl 1 month ago
This is democrats and Republicans not wanting people to vote for their candidate of choice because they have to constantly play the game of the lesser of two evils
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Not even one state that has banned it is run by Democrats.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
As of April 30, five states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 16.
Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18. West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
*** Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.*** North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.
Six states banned RCV in 2024.
5/6 are Republican shitheads however.
MetalMachine@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Your right about that, it is a fair thing to point out. However, I will mention that the democratic party has a hostile past to 3rd parties where they would do things like suing them to get them off ballots.
Here is one example for reference: apnews.com/…/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voti…
FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 month ago
And this is why you have the 2A
Bravo@eviltoast.org 1 month ago
Don’t blame me; I voted for Kodos
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 month ago
We voted for it at the county level here in CA. That was back in 2020. San Diego county voted to use RCV, as did several other counties in CA. The county registrar of voters is refusing to change from FPTP, and is waiting to see how the lawsuits turn out.
Even if your state hasn’t banned it, they will fight you tooth and nail not to change it.
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The fact that Americans banned it, means it good for the people.
tempest@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Lol home of the free, what a shit hole
RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 month ago
the gop specifically, they know thier VOter suppression and gerrymander all BS, and would be negated if that happened.
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If it happened, both parties were responsible, they work in tandem, pretending to be different sides, so you get fucked no matter where you vote.
Bravo@eviltoast.org 1 month ago
It’s not just the USA that’s in dire need of it. The UK should also adopt it. First Past The Post (FPTP) voting encourages polarized extremism.
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.
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.
BakerBagel@midwest.social 1 month ago
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
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.
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.
Cheems@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ranked choice should be the standard
ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Ohio is trying to ban it this year.
morgan_423@lemmy.world 1 month ago
First past the post voting is the sole issue that is keeping legitimately contending third parties off of our ballots.
Installing ranked choice voting (or one of its very close cousins) is the the number one reformation change that can be made to give the people their voices back. So of course, the powers that be are terrified of it… no surprises here.
Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 1 month ago
Seems about right. This reinforces my reality. If something good happened to humanity, I might wonder if I somehow might be going mad.
TheDoozer@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There was a STRONG effort to ban (or at least end) RCV here in Alaska, and it failed, but barely. They even did the super misleading wording, too, in order to make it unclear if the measure banned RCV or supported it.
I was always so confused by the adamant support that was being shown by general people, though. Like, I get why both Dems and Republicans would be against it: they want to be the only two players in the game. But why any general people would want less choice is beyond me. And it’s funny, because the staunchest proponents (at least where I am) were conservatives, when (again, where I live) RCV basically drove out the Democrats. There were Progressives, there were “centrists,” there were Libertarians, and then there was Republican/MAGA. Dems didn’t even get enough support to be on the ballot. So their hated Libs were wiped off the board entirely for being so ill-liked, but they want to get rid of that system? I just don’t get it.
s38b35M5@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Mainer here. Its great, except that the governor’s race is specifically exempted from RCV. May have something to do with GOP former governor LePage, but can’t recall before my morning meds…
RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Anything but real democracy.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Golly what a surprise! Duopoly gonna duopoly!
Remember that you still have power in this system by not voting for a party if they do not fulfill your demands.
motor_spirit@lemmy.world 1 month ago
absolutely shocked that southern states with the worst education and track history of the most oppressive laws would do this to their constituents
they’ve been nothing but whored-out welfare states the whole fucking time
Bieren@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Don’t worry. Voting altogether will be next.
bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
What is a ban going to do.
It just changes the language of the acceptance bill
chunes@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Meh. There are better voting systems such as range voting and STAR.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 month ago
🇦🇺 heh, amateurs… But seriously this is ridiculous, and straight up anti-democtatic. Single member first past the post is the worst voting system out there.
Inb4 they make mulit-member electorates winner-take-all (all seats to the party who got the plurality of votes).
This is THE fight USA. In my opinion, your ridiculous voting systems is probably why it’s so easy to suppress you.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, you know its the right thing if they are banning it.
yuxian20@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Love how it’s the cousin fucking states and the flyover Midwest.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Approval and STAR are better anyway. Not that they wouldn’t find a piss poor excuse to ban those as well.
gt5@lemm.ee 1 month ago
We have rcv here for local elections in nyc but not for any state or federal elections
Bwaz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It occurs to me that the electoral system might be used in Pres elections to work (very slightly) in that direction. What if a number of associated candidates made a pact that their electors, if elected, would vote for whichever of the pact makers got the most popular votes overall? Like if Sanders and Biden and Harris were in a pact like that of Democrats (named chosen of unlikely future candidates). People could vote for whichever, avoiding split-the-vote tactics. If Sanders won a state, but Harris got more pop votes nationwide, his electors would instead vote for her. Complicated maybe, but it wouldn’t need any constitutional changes, and might make disasters like a Trump win less likely. Dumb idea?
yucandu@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Really bugs me how americans talk about “ranked choice voting” because you guys seem to mean STV, which is a form of proportional representation with multi-member districts.
But in Canada, “ranked ballots” meant IRV, which was basically FPTP with a ranked ballot, and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system.
Stick with the real names of electoral systems!
LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Tl;dr
I was curious so I had to go look and see what states banned it. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to see the states that banned it are:
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Idaho
Kansas Kentucky
Louisiana Mississippi Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia Wyoming
BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Does it also shock you that Iowa is on the short list to do the same?
www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1848744
LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Nope. I live in Minnesota and I’m well aware of what I.O.W.A. stands for.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
For those non-USians reading this, the pattern is: states which tend to vote Republican and thus have majority Republican governance. So called “red states”.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
You’d think it would be democrats worried about another Bernie Sanders coming along.
What is it the republicans are worried about with RCV?
JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The left wing vote is split, so the Republicans can win just by getting the largest number of votes with first-past-the-post.
LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I don’t know because they shouldn’t be.
ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The magas only gained their stranglehold on the party, despite being a minority, due to the neocons splitting their primary ballots.
Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 1 month ago
Why did you add like a hundred spaces in front of the list of states? That makes it a code block that requires tons of horizontal scrolling to read. I didn’t even recognize it as such at first.
You know Lemmy has spoiler syntax, right? If that’s what you were going for?