Shouldn’t it be the son saying that?
well duh.
Submitted 1 year ago by EherVielleicht@feddit.de to [deleted]
https://feddit.de/pictrs/image/16a44ebc-725c-4139-939d-6c2d956e8fd8.jpeg
Comments
EtherWhack@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
The little shit needed to hear this sooner or later. It’s crazy how many people still feel like it is.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ve recently been a vocal proponent of rank choice voting. I literally haven’t seen any cons to it, and I think it’s the only chance of ever getting a 3rd party in the office, which I want SO BADLY
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not a “con” per se, but because ranked choice/instant runoff eliminates a candidate in each round, it can result in a similar effect where a new candidate further to the left or right of the otherwise most popular candidate can actually result in them being eliminated and the least popular candidate winning as a result. It’s called the “center squeeze” effect. It’s issue that already exists with plurality voting, “the spoiler effect”, but to a lesser capacity, so it’s definitely an improvement. But it’s still a problem when two similar candidates run at once.
I prefer approval voting because so long as everyone votes honestly, no candidate entering the race can spoil the results for the other candidates except to be more popular and win. With approval, you cast one vote to every candidate who you would approve of at all for the office, and rhe winner is the one who is approved by the most. There is the potentiality for issues there too, but only from some voters being being overly strategic and harming their own interests as a result. There’s no downside to voting honestly in approval voting systems.
Regardless, both systems are objectively better than plurality. What’s more, the absolute worse case scenario for overly strategic voting both systems is that everyone only votes for one candidate… which is just plurality voting. That means the absolute shittiest outcome for either system is… the system nearly everyone already uses now.
Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
so long as everyone votes honestly
That’s a big ask. If I think the vote will probably end up between two candidates I would be fine with winning, I am incentivized to only list the one I prefer. Likewise, if I think the vote will end up going to one of two candidates I would generally not be fine with winning, I am incentivized to list the one I perceive as the lesser evil regardless of my true preferences.
In the end, approval voting comes down to ranked choice voting, but instead of giving ranks you pick a rank threshold where everything above that rank is approved and everything below disapproved. The choice of that threshold is very vulnerable to strategic voting.
I do agree with you that it’s in most cases a better system than plurality though. Even if you strategically lower your threshold to put a lesser-evil type choice as your lowest accepted rank, you do still hand in an approval vote for every candidate above that one. Vice versa with disapproval and strategically raising the threshold.
rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
RCV is infinitely better than the current system, but there are problems with it. It’s possible and not uncommon for the most preferred candidate from getting squeezed out of the race.
explodicle@local106.com 1 year ago
What does “most preferred” mean in this context?
nottheengineer@feddit.de 1 year ago
It doesn’t get too much better if you just add more parties. What you need is a robust protection against corruption.
JohnL3nnin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Corruption is indeed one of the biggest problems in modern democracies, specially in the US. But corruption aside, the two party system is still a huge burden for the US democracy. The variety of opinions in society is huge and two parties could never represent that. You’re either for something, or against. In every political matter! In a multiple party system however, a party can side with party A on an economical matters and side with party B on infrastructural matter. A process like that eventually leads to better democratic compromises.
robocall@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Wake up? More like woke up!
jarfil@lemmy.world 1 year ago
He’s now.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
A two party system is an inescapable consequence of the plurality voting system (aka first-past-the-post voting) which is they system used by nearly all states and districts in the US. To fix the two party problem, the first step is to change the voting system. There are a number of alternative voting systems, each with their own pros and cons and situational uses. For legislative bodies, boards, or any other elected committee, in partial to proportional voting. And for single seat elections, I think approval voting is the ideal.
The thing that makes approval voting and other single seat voting systems better than plurality is that you vote for everyone you like. The way that that vote is cast and counted differs between systems. But in all cases, the benefit, ideally, is when 3 or more candidates exist for a seat, it prevents the least popular candidate from winning just because the other more popular candidates split the opposing voters. If you vote for each candidate you like, the candidates are never splitting the votes. The funny thing to me about most of these other fairer voting systems is that, while they are susceptible to a sort of spoiler effect from overly strategic or cynical voters who will simply only support one candidate, the result of that is just plurality voting, which we already have now. In other words, our current system is the worst case scenario for other, better, voting systems.
Some good videos on these systems… CGP Grey video series: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0W… Primer video: youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU?si=IZNs8AAp3Xlif23X
byroon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Is this accurate? My understanding is that at least in Europe, it is only the UK and Belarus that use first-past-the-post; everywhere else uses some form of proportional voting.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not the majority of the world, but there are a few dozen countries that primarily use FPTP. It’s used in North America, Europe, Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and a bunch of Pacific island nations. Belarus and the UK appear to be the only European nations to do so though, yes.
Here’s a map of the counties that primarily use FPTP: en.m.wikipedia.org/…/First-past-the-post_voting#/…
Also proportional voting is only used for groups of elected seats, not single winner elections.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The solution to single seat elections is… more seats 😛
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Great! Now any idea what we can do to make this a reality?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
State election reforms to ranked choice voting have already started some places. Alaska, Hawaii and Maine all use it for some state elections. Some other states use it in some local jurisdictions. Of course, several backwards states have outlawed Ranked Choice altogether. Once it’s used widely enough and been demonstrated to work well, that makes it easier to get it on a ballot at the federal level.
What can you do personally? Advocate for it where relevant, contact your representatives and let them know it’s important to you, and vote for it if given the chance.