Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.
My city does ranked choice voting, and it’s great! I would love to see it at the state level.
That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it “instant run-off voting” and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.
Yup. Y’all had it for a while.
I’m a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.
If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.
Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those…
STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.
So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.
- In an RCV system, you’d rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
- In a STAR system, you’d maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You’re still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.
So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i
It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.
It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”
Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
Yep the same Kremlin propaganda operation that elected Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump also “supported” Bernie to help get Treason Trump elected.
Thanks Hillary. Oof.
Biden is fucking awesome! Love the guy!! So do all these people.
Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.
America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.
Read more history if you disagree.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”
We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.
Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.
It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
Convenient you skip over the undermine
Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.
But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.
And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.
It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.
Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.
When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.
I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.
But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.
It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.
Projection at its finest.
Hey look, more liberals blatantly lying about how shit and corrupt their party is!
And you’ve provided. . .oh look! Nothing!
Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3
And to prove these lies you’ve provided …oh look! Nothing!
Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3
A blatant lie was all you provided.
They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.
Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.
Ranked choice doesn’t really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.
On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.
So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?
It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.
And… there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.
Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.
I’ll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn’t the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are “just strong enough to get concessions”.
Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.
I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.
None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.
Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.
I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.
As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.
Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.
How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)
And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.
To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv
https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog
If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.
You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.
Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).
Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”
People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.
We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don’t have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3
I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president
Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates
Brain Worm '24
Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I’m willing to be wrong. I’m not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.
Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by “ranked choice” (and most don’t even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting…)
Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.
At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.
Which… is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but… we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.
I’m not American but the list of things I would support over Trump is not small.
It’s the exact same sentiment as the 2020 election.
And the 2016 election (for many of us)
…i’ve always advocated against voting as it only serves to legitimise the electoral outcome, but the republican party finally forced my hand to vote in 2020, for which i’ll never forgive them…
It’s stunning that each party managed to find a candidate that could lose against the other.
Its not that stunning. In fact, its more common than you’d guess.
Only Ford could lose to Carter. Only Dukakis could lose to Bush. Only Hillary could lose to Trump. Hindsight 20/20. Foresight blind as a fucking bat.
Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American’s didn’t like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.
Today, a scandal is like a badge of “honor” and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you’re a Republican.
But bats aren’t blind
If the election was today, Biden would lose. Imagine if Trump wasn’t the nominee for November, the GOP would win the presidency.
Edit: it’s just reality according to the current polling.
according to the current polling
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it’s thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/michael-cohen-poll-rigging/index.html
You’re correct. They did it back then. They absolutely are still doing it now.
B-B-Biden bad! You really got to get it in huh.
Is a non-genocidal candidate capable of beating the criminal traitor Trump too much to ask for?
If he would lose the election today, YES, Biden is bad. Where’s the disconnect?
There it is again.
The disconnect that exists is that people don’t see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You’re doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.
people don’t see the good things he does
This is the point being made. If the election were tomorrow, Biden would lose because Trump is beating Biden in key swing states.
That could be a point, but the person I was responding to is on the war path of trying to make/change the point of “B B BIden bad”.
r2o admitted that he only posts the negative stuff. It’s why he got banned from politics.
I never said Biden is bad. He’s doing the bare minimum. Expect more from our politicians.
I would say that the bare minimum would actually include not actively supporting a genocide, but maybe I’m just out of touch.
Some genocide is actually fine. /s
Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.
Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden’s doing fucking great.
You want more? He doesn’t even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.
I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it’s 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.
Good luck.
Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.
My apologies, I post anything critical of Biden and the centrist rage comes out of the woodwork to defend him. I got my comments mixed up.
What should Biden do differently to run away with the change of winning re-election?
Expanding the oil industry and shutting down strikes then giving them a pittance isn’t good. Liberals keep lying ig, maybe if you lie hard enough biden will stop being a piece of shit
/s nothing and no one will stop him from being a piece of shit, telling blatant lies isn’t gonna get people to like him
If you think polling relates to reality then look into polling and how it doesn’t.
“Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it’s a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.
“Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just
Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don’t even “relate to reality.”
If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn’t the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.
There’s never been more evidence that we need to change voting systems in the US. We’ll continue to pick the lesser of two evils until that happens.
And it won’t, because both parties collectively have a stranglehold on the realisticness of such a change.
Yeah it sucks I have to vote for Biden because that conservative doctrine sounds scary as all hell, and Trump is a felon. I’m looking for a president that at the very least pretends to care about the environment, and that is not Trump who is an oil company stooge.
I mean no shit.
I think Trump retiring and the Republicans replacing him with a charismatic, young, intelligent christofascist would be devastating for the Democrats (and humanity) right now and I don’t know why they don’t do it.
For that matter I don’t see why Democrats don’t replace Biden with a charismatic, young, intelligent social democrat which would be equally devastating for republicans. So who knows with these people.
Charismatic + Young + Intelligent + Christofascist…
0 results found.
I think Republicans might need to remove one search criterion to make that work.
As for Dems… that might just be AOC? Lol
I’d love to vote for AOC too
I would love to vote for AOC. She will be old enough to run next year, but it will be four years before the next election.
Not an American, but AOC is who I hope the Dems go with next time. She’s the only thing I envy about your political situation atm.
She checks all the boxes unless you’re the type to believe Republican spin (she was a bartender once but has more education than most GoP house members). I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/
I don’t think the DNC will be able to stop her. They can only do so much. I was a huge Bernie fan, volunteered at rallies and everything, but even I can acknowledge that the support was not quite strong enough to overcome the establishment headwind. He came close twice, but I think there were a number of people who wrote him off over his age and whatnot.
I think AOC could tip the scales, she’s young and smart and has real conviction. She has all the Bernie benefits with none of the baggage.
Honestly I think aoc is the only I could be excited to vote for right now.
I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/
What, other than bleak cynicism, leads you to that conclusion?
History, history leads to that conclusion
Why, bleak cynicism of course!
No really, it’s just my concern since she’s on the progressive side and you know how the Dems are.
That spin is hilarious when you consider the source, they voted for a reality TV personality and didn’t bar an eye when he padded his cabinet with family members and inept grifters.
You’re right. DeSantis would’ve been catastrophic if he wasn’t such a little weirdo with no charisma.
They don’t do it because it doesn’t serve them personally. As we have seen time and time again, politicians are mostly griftfers that will flip on a dime and change their moral compass just so that they can benefit from the situation.
By personally do you mean financially? Because I think an argument for personal benefit could be made for blowing the opposition out of the water.
By personally, I mean money, power, favors.
Any influence they can use for themselves.
Because the cult is about the man, not the idea. Ron DeSantis tried to be just that (not saying he holds any of those qualities that you mentioned, just that he tried) and failed because no one cares about what Trump actually stands for (when you listen to Trump supporters talk about him, you’d think they would actually vote for democrats considering the issues they bring up—barring the worst of the worst racist, homophobic deranged individuals of course). At the end of the day, they just care about their god-lord little-hand long-tie orange-faced crybaby and the made-up grievances he’s had to endure and how that somehow translates to their own impending persecution.
The reason the Democratic Party hasn’t does that is they hold the monopoly on milquetoast impotence in governing, as their corporate overlords have decreed.
I have to assume the reason is because they don’t have anyone. If they did they’d be relatively forefront in politics and you’d know about them.
Probably why the Republicans attacked AOC so hard and made sure all their followers knew exactly where they were supposed to stand in regards to her.
Charismatic, intelligent people don’t need fascism nearly as much as dumbfucks do but even for the few who get sucked in anyway, there’s easier and more self-serving ways to express it than a grueling, always-on position in the Republican party.
But ultimately the answer to both “why don’t they run someone actually good” questions is “because it would be a threat to neoliberals and their record profits”.
Neolibs can’t countenance that their darling politicians are actually right of Nixon, let alone admit it.
They don’t have anyone nearly as good as him. People give Trump a lot of shit, deservedly so, but he’s one hell of a politician. Nobody can galvanize their base like he does.
Yeah. Agree 100%. His greatest political victory was to convince people that a born wealthy real estate clown is an “outsider” to politics that can relate to the common folk. A true outsider would be an engineer, doctor, scientist, etc. Someone that doesn’t have the ability to increase their wealth by millions with minor tweaks in the law.
Ever notice that corpo speak and political speak are exactly the same. Like how they can both run circles around any question without ever answering it? Yeah.
No shit! That’s our fucking election system. After the primaries, we wind up withtwo candidates that most people don’t like, and we vote against the one we think is worse. It’s been this way for a very long time. Case in point:
https://youtu.be/riDypP1KfOU?si=xwlInd1CS9p7rYcT
Acting like this is shocking news is disingenuous bullshit.
Biden has not been as bad as I expected him to be, but he is out of touch with the average American. Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65. But I’ll take him over the convicted felon.
I’d take a leftist of any age over a 35 year old centrist.
Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65.
Ah yes, ageism.
There’s nobody over 65 who is a good political leader. Nobody under 65 is a bad political leader. Everyone immediately turns into a useless chump on their 65th birthday. They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.
They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.
That’s just wasteful, you need to scrap them first so you can extract the valuable metals from their medical implants. Then you butcher them for any good meat. Then you puree the rest (apart from the brain due to prions) to feed to children.
That seems a bit excessive.
A 34-year-old can’t become president, if that is not ageism in the first place, I don’t know what is. But fine, if you are lucid and nimble enough to survive and win a presidential campaign, I guess you’re good for 4 years of constant stress and travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
it’s not ageism to expect care for the future from people who are going to expect to see it. we’ve already seen that boomers could care less what happens after they’re gone, as long as they absolutely ruin whatever they can in the mean time.
I don’t think it’s ageist to believe that someone who represents this country should be able to accurately understand that wants and needs of the average American. At a certain point someone becomes too old to understand the average American, they rely on their own personal experiences which may be out of date.
You can’t be a good president if you’re over 65.
You can’t be a good president if you’re under 65.
You can’t be a good president.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…"
“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
This is the current state of US politics - it’s more about who you’re against than who you’re for, and I firmly believe this is the reason why no scandals seem to matter anymore.
On the conservative side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Biden and the Democrats are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an ® next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Trump of all people became the party leader.
Strategic voting is a direct result of first past the post voting; effectively any system that uses FPTP will result in a two party system where your vote gets used against the other person not for your choice.
I’ll continue to shill for ranked choice voting whenever I see any opportunity.
I thought this was an Onion article at first. Of course most people voting Biden are only doing so because the only other option is convicted felon Donald Trump.
Biden is a loser president in a loser system. But if the option is him or Insurrectionist/Felon/Rapist Donald Trump, it is the option people will vote for.
“People voting for watching paint dry instead of poking sticks in their eyes appear to be mostly motivated by avoiding sticks…in their eyes.”
It’s more like getting slowly poked in the eye or quickly poked in the eye.
"Popular men, tey must create strange monsters, and then quell 'hem ; to make their artes seeme something. "
