My city had ranked choice voting implemented by Democrats in the 1970s. They elected the first black mayor, who is still one of our most beloved mayors in the city’s history, under RCV.
Then Republicans made it illegal at a state level when they had a trifecta. Democrats keep introducing bills at the state level to allow RCV, and Republicans take more and more drastic action against it. So yeah… I want more Democrats in my state government so we can have RCV.
Why don’t you name the city and mayor?
Because I didn’t think it particularly important for countering this same old tired BS. But if you really want to know, it’s Ann Arbor, MI and the mayor was Albert Wheeler.
(Edit and fun fact: I’m writing this from Wheeler Park right now ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ)
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
To the surprise of nobody Republicans also don’t support a voting system that would end the Democrat-Republican duopoly.
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn’t a “Dems” problem, it’s a two party problem.
Even if state and local elections are ranked choice, the presidential election will still be a first past the post election and the electoral college is still designed for a two party system.
Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren’t hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.
So you primary in Dems who will support ranked choice. This is .ml, surely you’ve all heard of entryism?
deleted by creator
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.
Alaska’s top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.
Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.
But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.
Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.
TL;DR: I’ll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.
So don’t participate in the system, got it. Just stay home and give up on Democracy.
Do you think voting is the entirety of political expression for the working class?
Do you think it’s a zero sum game where voting somehow disables your ability to do other activism and organizing?
Somewhat. Voting makes very little difference at the federal level in the first place, and the huge importance placed on it does placate liberals somewhat.
It also takes very little effort.
Yep, and that’s why it’s the extent 99.9% of libs are willing to go, and no further.
deleted by creator
Kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America
Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.
oh yes the standard reply.
Rs actively tearing it down like in Alaska
Ds putting forth a bill to do it but only started by three of them this time around
“both sides are the same!”
yawn
Did you even read what I wrote?
Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.
The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.
There’s a “Vote No on Ranked Choice Voting” sign on my way to work.
Someone just needs to paint over the word ‘no’
I’m not sure if it’s legal to deface political signs like that.
Edit: it’s very much not
Oh no
So anyway
We are not them.
Moralism, or: how to let “civility” get in the way of stopping fascism.
War would be a lot easier if we chose to do away with pesky restrictions like the Geneva convention, but would you be proud to be on the side that dropped white phosphorus on an elementary school to win? Would you prefer that we start making up lies and false rumors about Trump and Co? Restraint is difficult; I understand that, put the resulting clean victory is the most lasting kind.
Someone’s unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn’t make an ineffective solution the answer.
The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:
If a solution doesn’t have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn’t matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.
Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.
Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.
It pressures the system in those cities or states, which is actual pressure to the system, just not direct pressure on the federal government. History shows you can mount pressure through local and state changes until it gets overwhelming support on a federal level.
You can make the argument there might be more effective or quicker solutions, but this is unquestionably one path toward it.
My point is that tiny, inconsequential pressure is allowed so that you think it applies pressure. Whenever it gets close to making a difference, it won’t.
You say that with a lot of certainty, but without any evidence to back it up. If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.
If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.
This is the opposite of correct, the ruling class will never do something because it’s right or effective, but because they need to. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, you’re repeating the errors of the Owenites.
I don’t disagree that the ruling class won’t do something that doesn’t align with their interests. I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes. The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us. Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation. The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party. Owen was apolitical, I am not.
I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes.
Are you suggesting genuine revolutionary pressure, or suggesting that public opinion meaningfully sways the parties?
The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us.
Correct.
Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation.
Not sure what this means, are you suggesting working outside the electoral system, or within it?
The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party.
Where does this political Capital come from? How do you grow it if not working with Third Parties to begin with?
More importantly, if we side with the Dems, why does that increase the political capital of leftists? The GOP will not go away, even if the party itself crumbles, what will replace it will be another far-right party, because the material conditions for that remain as long as we continue to exist in decaying Capitalism.
Owen was apolitical, I am not.
Not sure what this means.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself? Marxist, Anarchist, Liberal, etc.?
if they wont give us what we want or need they dont deserve our votes, maybe next time they will offer more than “im not the other guy”, if the democrats will not be pushed left then they should be destroyed.
In order for politics to align towards your values you have to vote for the candidate closest to them, which forces the losing parties to get closer or die, which pushes the winning party to move towards you.
If you throw away or don’t vote none of that happens because you have no impact.
This is wrong. The parties don’t see the views of the people that vote for them, just that they recieved more or fewer votes. If Leftists vote Dem 100% of the time, then the Dems will never move any more to the Left, because they already have their vote.
This is a few people not the party as a whole.
Notably there is a platform out there for the Democratic candidate. Unless I missed something RCV is not on the agenda.
Do those goalposts have little feet on them?
“Democrats wouldn’t do this”
Democrats do this
“No, not like that”
Look, I said it in a dumb meme format so you know it’s true
(I appreciate you for posting here, just making fun of you 😊)
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable. 3rds will need to work together to push ranked choice more and more into voters’ field of view.
Republicans will swan-dive into fascism, in which case 3rds (and everyone else) are fucked.
Dems aren’t going to help 3rds directly, but any one who wants the possibility of a 3rd party victory later is committing political suicide by failing to vote blue as a means of buying time. Voting 3rd when that 3rd has no potential for victory is self-destructive.
Also just following the green party a bit and educating your self about them… you learn that the green party is as focused on selfish personal horse race politics that deals with power plays, as the dem party (though on a smaller scale) instead of actual change.
This political cycle, Green party had a chance to radically push the Dems on palestine, by putting up a candidate that would drop out if Dems changed their position on support for Israel.
Jill Stein rejected it.
Just the fact they rejected it shows to me that they’re not serious about actual political change. They just want to be a spoiler. They continue to only run in general elections instead ofnpushing in states.
So I guess i have no home party, but Ill vote for the lesser of two evils still.
This is incredibly dishonest. The Greens actually did the compromise thing in 2020 and didn’t go as hard so Dems could beat Trump.
In return they got Democrats doing Genocide and AOC Pelosi now yapping about how Greens are “predatory” honest because they dropped in the 2020 polls.
Democrats can not do Genocide they don’t need to Greens to bow down for them.
In return? Dems have always been for genocide. Joe Biden has been terrible for Israel Paleatine.
Dems are better on this issue than they ever have been (Biden excluded) due to activist pressure, no thanks to Greens.
Pelosi actuall said in March that we should limit sales to Israel. I don’t think people realize how incredible that is.
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable.
Much like during covid when they gave preferential treatment to themselves while simultaneously working to remove the Green party from ballots.
-More to the point your comment runs contrary to reality and the very nature of the joke pointed out in the meme.
…and a swan-dive into fascism is preferable to that because…?
Our political model is janky as fuck. I don’t need to explain the pitfalls of a two-party system to you - I already know you fucking hate it or you wouldn’t be eyeing a 3rd in the first place. I hate it too. But a two party system is what we have, which means you have three options:
-
Red (fascism)
-
Blue (not fascism)
-
Let the other voters choose Red or Blue for you (abstain or vote 3rd).
Which of those options will do the best job of accomplishing YOUR goals?
What even are your goals? 3rd party as POTUS? You gotta lay the groundwork first. 2016 was the perfect stage for a 3rd party victory within our current model: we had an absolutely hated candidate running on both of the big two; a voterbase just as sick of the status quo as they are now; a Libertarian with a genuinely likable personality, some solid policy stances, and who managed to shift the “crazy” that Libertarians were reputed for to an honestly charming variety of “quirky”, and a surprisingly steady stream of coverage by the media. We will never see better conditions for a 3rd victory in our current model.
So how did the Libertarians do with that perfect storm? 3%. They got fucking 3% of the vote. How do those conditions compare to today’s? Red is running that same hated sack of shit Trump; but Blue couldn’t find a candidate hated as much as Hillary if they tried to - to the contrary, Harris is churning up optimism like I’ve never seen before. The die-hard Reds and Blues aren’t going to change their votes over that, but the folks in the middle are going to be far less inclined to vote 3rd than they were in 2016. 3rds have gotten pretty much zero media attention this time around. They literally do not stand a chance to beat even 2016’s 3%, let alone enough to actually win.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that’s more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection… that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don’t do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it’s game over for everyone except the fascists.
If you see a different option that’ll lead to a 3rd victory in our current model, I’m all ears; but if not, you still need to set the stage with favorable conditions, to include preventing the stage from being burned to the ground.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that’s more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection… that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don’t do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it’s game over for everyone except the fascists.
Why do you think fascism exists, and why is it present in America?
-
The green party only exists because the GOP keeps giving them money. The only time anyone ever hears a damn word out of them, is when they’re showing up to split the Dem vote for the GOP.
You might want lay off the Blue MAGA conspiracies for a bit.
Commission certifies Jill Stein eligible to receive federal matching funds (2024)
Based on documents received on June 3, 2024, Jill Stein and Jill Stein for President 2024 (JSFP) fulfilled the agreement and certification requirements and contributions
To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must submit Candidate and Committee Agreements and Certifications as well as raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual.
Also the entire Democratic party runs on AIPAC which is actually funded by Republicans. Dems reaching unprecedented levels of projection.
Blue MAGA
Lol. Lmao, even
When everything Democrats don’t like is a Russian GOP state agent because someone drew some text on an image and they did zero fact checking, you know they’ve reached MAGA levels.
If any of these insane conspiracies were actually true the Green party would not even be allowed to run. The Democrats have done everything to try to concern troll the Greens off ballots in most “democratic” fashion.
They might label some people incorrectly as russian agents, but the reality is that there is a concerted effort by russia to undermine the US democracy, mostly directed at the Democratic Party, and making some mistakes doesn’t make them delusional.
It’s pretty hard to prosecute propaganda in the US due to the First Amendment, so it’s not accurate to say that just because the Greens can run, they must not be russian agents.
The concern about the Greens is eminently logical: they are never going to win, so the best they can do is take votes from the Democrats, allowing the fascists to win. This is in fact what happened in the election of Polk, leading to the Mexican-American war and the theft of Texas from Mexico, which was then admitted as an additional slave state. Further, the Greens do little to nothing other than run in big national races, so it’s not a leap to think they’re deliberately running a spoiler campaign.
Finally, none of that has anything to do with the silly attempt to label Democrats as “Blue MAGA”, since MAGA is a quasi-religious fascist personality cult, none of which can be credibly attributed to Democrats.
I guess the reason they won’t is to avoid the “there’s 5 different left parties” meme moment.
