Dunno, it sounds to me like what the British and French elections show is that you don't defeat a growing the far right with the same neo-liberals who created the material conditions for the right to take hold.
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
77 points (87.4% liked)
politics
19165 readers
2648 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Everybody in Ireland loves our single-transferable vote. Any we moan about everything.
I don't see any flaw. It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than first past the post.
The flaw is that you could just do it all in one round with ranked choice instead of having runoff elections and/or tactical voting.
Having runoff elections allows for another round of campaigning and the voters can make a more informed choice given the results of the first round. There is some value in that, but personally I'd lean towards instant runoff or just proportional representation etc.
That value of continued campaigns should be weighed against the requirement that voters need to vote multiple times. Depending on how the votes are cast (in-person vs. mail-in, precinct-based vs. county-based, etc.), subsequent rounds of voting would likely see diminishing voter turnout.
Look at Arrow's theorem, perfect voting system cannot exist. And if you want user friendly voting system with understandable rules, it gets further from ideal.
In practice, FPTP is not actually user-friendly either. Unless you're lucky enough that you genuinely do just want to vote for whichever of the two big candidates you're presented with, you either vote tactically (a decision nobody enjoys taking) or you accept an extremely high likelihood of your vote being effectively wasted. Even if the actual process of putting a mark next to one candidate is simple, the decision process leading up to that is significantly complicated beyond the necessary "work out who you like"
You could pick literally any of the alternatives and it would be better than FPTP. There's nothing difficult about ranking candidates; Australians have done it for around 100 years.
Worth nitpicking: Fairvote pushes RCV exclusively, and RCV is a mediocre use of ranked ballots. It beats first-past-the-post... but anything would. If you're offered RCV, take it, but if we're just talking, stop saying "Ranked Choice" and talk about "ranked ballots."
The proper use of ranked ballots is a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs, where the winner is whoever would trounce every other candidate 1v1. There is no "it shoulda been" because mathematically, it was. Ranked Pairs also punishes dishonesty in all but the stupidest circumstances. It is important to minimize opportunities for people to tell themselves they're suuuper geeeniuses for putting Double Hitler above Preferred Frontrunner for a one-in-a-zillion shot their Favorite Nobody will scrape by with less support. Fundamentally - scraping by with less support is trying to ruin democracy. Don't fucking do it, you dipshits.
The stopgap is letting people check multiple names.
That's called Approval Voting - same ballots as now, most votes wins. Somehow matches Condorcet results when enough people vote. There is no good reason it's not the default.