Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York City Impliments the Only True Voting System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New York City Impliments the Only True Voting System

    NYC has adopted Ranked Choice voting.

    Ranked-choice voting works much like its name suggests. Instead of picking just one candidate on the ballot, voters rank their top five in order of preference.

    Once those votes are cast, they are counted in the following way, Lee Drutman explains:
    Ranked-choice voting lets voters mark their first-choice candidate first, their second-choice candidate second, their third-choice candidate third, and so on. Each voter has only one vote but can indicate their backup choices: If one candidate has an outright majority of first-place rankings, that candidate wins, just like a traditional election.

    But if no candidate has a majority in the first round, the candidate in last place is eliminated. Voters who had ranked that candidate first have their votes transferred to the candidate they ranked second. This process continues until a single candidate gathers a majority.
    Advocates of ranked-choice voting argue that it has many benefits. Because candidates need broad-based support to win, they are forced to engage with a wide range of voters, including groups that do not always see outreach from political campaigns. Additionally, studies have found that ranked-choice voting increases the number of minority and women candidates who vie for elected office, partly because ranked-choice campaigning is less negative.


    https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/pol...mpression=true

  • #2
    It'd be interesting in primary season. Might've halted the rise of a guy like Trump.

    During a general nationwide election with two major candidates, it wouldn't really accomplish anything.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
      It'd be interesting in primary season. Might've halted the rise of a guy like Trump.

      During a general nationwide election with two major candidates, it wouldn't really accomplish anything.
      It would help 3rd parties become a more viable voting option. Far more likely to receive a larger share of votes than they do now. Could help lead to a congress and senate with more diverse ideas that represent more people in this country. And in a presidential election, the it allows for the same. More candidates who don't have to rely on the two big parties to get funding for the next election. You only need, what, 5% of the vote to get federal funding for your next campaign?

      But again, this needs to be put into place with both term limits and campaign finance reform accross the board. From a city treasurer to the US Senate. Top to bottom.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

        It would help 3rd parties become a more viable voting option. Far more likely to receive a larger share of votes than they do now. Could help lead to a congress and senate with more diverse ideas that represent more people in this country. And in a presidential election, the it allows for the same. More candidates who don't have to rely on the two big parties to get funding for the next election. You only need, what, 5% of the vote to get federal funding for your next campaign?
        It would only significantly change situations where multiple candidates currently split votes and lose based on similar bases. I doubt the actual protest vote in a mostly two-way election is going to provide rankings for you beyond a favorite because it would defy the purpose of a protest vote. I certainly wouldn't have marked any preference between Trump or Clinton when voting for GJ.. I think most GJ voters saw either as unsupportable. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered.

        But again, this needs to be put into place with both term limits and campaign finance reform accross the board. From a city treasurer to the US Senate. Top to bottom.
        Until you figure out how to regulate entities like Fox and MSNBC, this is a non-starter. All it does is elevate their importance, and speed the road to corruption they're already hundreds of miles down.

        Otherwise you're divvying the world up into sanctified and forbidden speakers. Which is baldly unconstitutional.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wish we had this in the county sheriffs election.

          But it’s whatever, if you want better candidates, restrict the franchise and eliminate the retards that prop up the **** candidates whose campaign strategy is promising the world and increasing the debt.

          Comment


          • #6

            It would only significantly change situations where multiple candidates currently split votes and lose based on similar bases. I doubt the actual protest vote in a mostly two-way election is going to provide rankings for you beyond a favorite because it would defy the purpose of a protest vote. I certainly wouldn't have marked any preference between Trump or Clinton when voting for GJ.. I think most GJ voters saw either as unsupportable. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered.
            I don't think we are seeing this anywhere close to the same way. Look at most European or even Latin American parlaments. You definitely see more than two parties in almost every country besides our own. Why? Ranked Choice voting.


            Until you figure out how to regulate entities like Fox and MSNBC, this is a non-starter. All it does is elevate their importance, and speed the road to corruption they're already hundreds of miles down.

            Otherwise you're divvying the world up into sanctified and forbidden speakers. Which is baldly unconstitutional.

            Explain why term limits and campaign finance reform are bad.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post


              I don't think we are seeing this anywhere close to the same way. Look at most European or even Latin American parlaments. You definitely see more than two parties in almost every country besides our own. Why? Ranked Choice voting.
              Nah, I think it has more to do with the parliamentary system. You can vote for the local guy you like who then goes to the capital and makes the sausage of compromise to determine who leadership should be. You get to feel like you voted for a good guy. He gets to shelter you from the reality of leadership battles.

              When you elect leadership directly, the people have to think all that through for themselves, and start making their own lesser evils calculations. I'd just like to reassert some kind of minimum ethical floor on this lesser of evils game. Otherwise it's only going to keep getting worse.

              Explain why term limits and campaign finance reform are bad.
              Not really sold on term limits either way. Campaign finance reform is essentially a mechanism for the ruling political class to determine who is allowed to be heard (in a mass market society mind you) and who isn't.

              Without the ability to leverage money, you have no chance of communicating to any real effect. At least on national issues. Telling a person they can't spend money to get a message out is effectively silencing them.

              Comment


              • #8


                Nah, I think it has more to do with the parliamentary system. You can vote for the local guy you like who then goes to the capital and makes the sausage of compromise to determine who leadership should be. You get to feel like you voted for a good guy. He gets to shelter you from the reality of leadership battles.

                When you elect leadership directly, the people have to think all that through for themselves, and start making their own lesser evils calculations. I'd just like to reassert some kind of minimum ethical floor on this lesser of evils game. Otherwise it's only going to keep getting worse.
                Except it's not like that at all. Coming from living 8 years in Australia. Sure leadership battles exist, but it's less important than the policy they end up voting on. At least, from a person that could not vote as I wasn't a citizen.

                People still make a lesser of evils calculation in that scenario, but that calculation is done after they get to vote for who they really wanted to as their first choice.


                Not really sold on term limits either way. Campaign finance reform is essentially a mechanism for the ruling political class to determine who is allowed to be heard (in a mass market society mind you) and who isn't.

                Without the ability to leverage money, you have no chance of communicating to any real effect. At least on national issues. Telling a person they can't spend money to get a message out is effectively silencing them.
                With Social Media, there is no reason you need to spend any real amount of money on political advertising if you have a savvy team behind you and a platform that basically inspires others to promote you. The idea of paying millions on TV ads needs to die. As long as the internet remains a free and open place, politicians always have a voice.

                Most people like the idea of capping campaign spending: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...cal-influence/

                Also allowing billions of dollars to continue to be pushed around in our system, especially around politicians, is already corruption as we all know. So stopping it is one way to stamp it out. Heavy regulation and harsh penalties including REAL jailtime are a couple of fixes without installing term limits.

                But I don't think that one person should be sitting in office for 40+ years. Go do something else, preferably not lobbying.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post



                  Except it's not like that at all. Coming from living 8 years in Australia. Sure leadership battles exist, but it's less important than the policy they end up voting on. At least, from a person that could not vote as I wasn't a citizen.

                  People still make a lesser of evils calculation in that scenario, but that calculation is done after they get to vote for who they really wanted to as their first choice.
                  I guess rethinking about it, it might encourage a third party centrist to run. Maybe you're right.

                  Might also make that third party centrist the actual favorite. Neither Trump nor a Warren type will sniff 50%. Maybe a compromise candidate would be there to clean up. That said, it would have to be taken on state by state. Hard to see which states would consider unilaterally disarming first.

                  With Social Media, there is no reason you need to spend any real amount of money on political advertising if you have a savvy team behind you and a platform that basically inspires others to promote you. The idea of paying millions on TV ads needs to die. As long as the internet remains a free and open place, politicians always have a voice.
                  One... you guys spend all your time telling us that free speech is not guaranteed on these platforms. So by extension, you're making Mark Zuckerberg a privleged speaker and everyone else subject to his whim. Another case of campaign finance doing the opposite of what's advertised.

                  Two... 'Savvy Teams' aren't free, or anything close to it. There are entire multi-billion businesses built around social media marketing. There is no free lunch. Sharing a comment with your hundred friends isn't going to make a dent. And locking you in that room while Hannity and Madcow get to spew ad nauseum day after day really is nothing resembling equal protection.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IRV would be a major contributing force to destroying the terrible two party system. It would take a while to work, but it would make additional parties actually viable since people would no longer need to vote defensively which is what leads to a two party cluster****.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One... you guys spend all your time telling us that free speech is not guaranteed on these platforms. So by extension, you're making Mark Zuckerberg a privleged speaker and everyone else subject to his whim. Another case of campaign finance doing the opposite of what's advertised.

                      Two... 'Savvy Teams' aren't free, or anything close to it. There are entire multi-billion businesses built around social media marketing. There is no free lunch. Sharing a comment with your hundred friends isn't going to make a dent. And locking you in that room while Hannity and Madcow get to spew ad nauseum day after day really is nothing resembling equal protection.
                      It's absolutely guaranteed. Just remain within the terms of service and don't violate them. Andrew Yang has never been banned on Facebook or Twitter and his base is comprised basically of people on the internet.

                      Facebook is not the only place to post. Build a youtube channel, twitter, snapchat, build your own site and make it enticing for people to visit. I'm aware that Savvy media teams are not free. But they cost a whole lot less than alot of the other non-sense that campaigns spend their money on. For one, it would lower the amount of attack ads you see. Why waste precious money attacking when you could be winning with policy instead? Especially in a RAC or IRV system where you run attack ads that turn people off and suddenly you're not their first or even second choice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                        It's absolutely guaranteed. Just remain within the terms of service and don't violate them. Andrew Yang has never been banned on Facebook or Twitter and his base is comprised basically of people on the internet.
                        Facebook routinely deplatforms people, though not as routinely as other big players like Twitter.

                        Your argument that if you just stay within certain orthodoxies like Yang, you'll be fine is doing more damage to your point than anything. You're not allowed to say what you want. It's not free speech.

                        Facebook is not the only place to post. Build a youtube channel, twitter, snapchat, build your own site and make it enticing for people to visit. I'm aware that Savvy media teams are not free. But they cost a whole lot less than alot of the other non-sense that campaigns spend their money on. For one, it would lower the amount of attack ads you see. Why waste precious money attacking when you could be winning with policy instead? Especially in a RAC or IRV system where you run attack ads that turn people off and suddenly you're not their first or even second choice.
                        Facebook.... deplatforms
                        Youtube..... deplatforms
                        Snapchat.... deplatforms

                        At the end of the day we're back to "free speech for speech I like."

                        Which is antithetical to the concept.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well that was bad timing...

                          https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/eliz...te-change.html

                          Elizabeth Warren slams Twitter for a policy that bans ads from groups fighting climate change

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                            Facebook routinely deplatforms people, though not as routinely as other big players like Twitter.

                            Your argument that if you just stay within certain orthodoxies like Yang, you'll be fine is doing more damage to your point than anything. You're not allowed to say what you want. It's not free speech.



                            Facebook.... deplatforms
                            Youtube..... deplatforms
                            Snapchat.... deplatforms

                            At the end of the day we're back to "free speech for speech I like."

                            Which is antithetical to the concept.
                            You have the right to free speech, not free speech without consequences. If you're spouting hateful rhetoric, that's your choice. Just be aware that the terms of service may end up with you being banned. We all abide by rules here on the forum. You're more than free to spew hate on the streets, but there are possible consequences for you there as well. Like the possibility of someone punching you in the mouth.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                              You have the right to free speech, not free speech without consequences..
                              if one of those 'consequences' is removal of speech, then what you have is not free speech. And never was.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X