Yeah, I agree with them. Ranked Choice voting is extremely confusing. First you have to rank the candidates in the order you prefer to win, then…oh wait, no. It’s really not confusing at all.
But these poor black people can’t count to five!
How fucking patronizing.
As a citizen of a country with ranked choice voting the hardest thing is choosing which of the loonies you want to put last!
Is it patronizong if it’s backed by data? The article discusses how they’re not just claiming it’s confusing for these districts out of nothing, they’re pointing to existing voting data that shows when there are multiple seats to fill for the same position, such as City Council seats, voters in these districts neglect to cast votes for the additional seats at a higher rate than other districts. “Undervoting” it’s apparently called.
This is a horrifically self-serving bullshit “solution” to this problem, but there does appear to be a real problem that ought to be addressed as part of a ranked-choice rollout.
Sounds like there just needs to be a little bit of voter education rather than scrapping the whole thing.
I would need to see the ballot to say for sure, but the article lists this example:
“The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.””
So, when presented with a relatively simple “Vote For Two” choice, Ward 7 and 8 are less likely to vote for a second person.
If that’s a problem, then the idea of not only voting for multiple people, but ranking them 1-2-3, may be a big issue.
Remember, back in 2000 Florida voters struggled with the butterfly ballot.
But in the end, this could be solved by a combination of education, clear instructions, and an easy to understand ballot design.
I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, “Oh no, I’m allowed to vote for TWO people?” and immediately bolting out the door.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/s5rtV8nDScc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s a design and execution problem, not a voter problem. The Florida ballots had a stupid design that met the needs of a counting machine, not the needs of voters
Pretty sure it was less about the machine snd more about intentionally confusing older voters to pull votes from Gore and add them to Buchanan…
Maybe the second candidate was s*** and nobody wanted to vote for them? Or maybe voters really only wanted the one person.
Or, and I think this is more likely, people are used to the idea of marking more than one name invalidating the ballot.
You think that’s more likely huh? But somehow only in those two heavily minority districts? What are you basing that on?
I don’t think it’s just in those minority districts. The article states that it’s WORSE in those districts, that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem elsewhere.
Maybe they need to put “Vote for Two” in bold or a bigger font or something. Like I said at the top, it’s hard to tell without seeing the ballot design.
No, it’s only confusing for people in predominantly black areas! Wait… this statement seems problematic…
Quick grab your kente cloth and kneel to make it all better!
Undervoting is a real issue.
deleted by creator
they always have, if we’re honest. Corpo Dems think the working class needs shepherding. they like to pretend they’re benevolent while their benefactors fuck us slowly. They’re benevolence is only incomparison to the party of “Saying the Quiet Part out Loud”.
No, this isn’t a both-sides argument. This is a “just because one side is objectively worse doesn’t mean the Corpo Dems don’t also really suck.” argument.
Liberals have always and will always be the natural enemy of the Left and the working class. That’s been true for almost 400 years and it isn’t changing now.
Right wing stooge says what?
If you don’t know the difference between leftist and liberal you should probably crack open wikipedia before you try to crack a witty retort.
“Leftists” as you like to call them don’t exist in the US. Leftists in the US are Democrats aka neolibs. Literally the left wing of Congress. The leftists you’re thinking of are a rounding error, they effectively don’t exist.
But in any case what few leftists there are in the US are working with the neolibs against the regressive neocon fascist bastards trying to take over our country. Fascists are the natural enemy of the working class, and anyone with a brain. Picking libs over fascists is such an obvious take anyone arguing differently is a moron or a boot licker.
Leftists definitely exist in the states. We just don’t have a political party whose candidates we can reasonably vote for.
Source: am leftist; am also American
There’s no left politicians in the US. Not even AOC or Bernie.
Corpos are all Center Right. Not a single Liberal among them.
Liberals are by definition pro corporations.
false.
adjective
adjective: liberal; adjective: Liberal1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. h Similar: progressiveforward-looking
forward-thinking
progressivist
go-ahead
enlightened
reformist
radical
freethinking
left-wing
leftist
politically correct
PC
woke
right-on
h
Opposite:
conservativereactionary Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
noun
noun: liberal; plural noun: liberals; noun: Liberal; plural noun: Liberals1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals" 2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Typical gaslighting liberal nonsense. Keep trying to tell us that corporations don’t come first to the Democrats. It’s blatant bullshit and every ordinary person knows it.
They didn’t even mention anyone not being able to vote because of race. They mentioned in court that certain areas that happen to have older voters, poorer voters, and black voters could be potentially undermined by ranked choice. And it’s proven to be true. As shown in previous elections time and time again. It is called undervoting.
See:
None of these commenters read the fucking article. You read the headlines and then jump straight to the hot takes, to spew about unrelated agendas.
The Democratic Party officials in DC are like 90% black.
Here are literally the actual people who made the argument in court. You. can see their pictures:
https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton
Just to be clear: I’m for ranked choice. Their concern is not racist. And saying it is in this case means you didn’t read the article.
Here’s Charles Wilson - The leader of the DC democrats, who personally argued in court, as mentioned in the article you all didn’t read:
All I had to do was read the article to not come to the same conclusion as half the people in this thread. Community fail. This thread proves some people can’t be bothered to read. And that’s what the argument made in court was about - confusion.
You didn’t read the article. I did. You also apparently didn’t read the TLDR bullet points. I did. Let me get the excerpts for you:
They argued in a lawsuit that low-income and Black voters would be confused by the system.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to block ranked choice voting in Washington, DC, the local Democratic Party argued that implementing the system would be particularly confusing for voters in predominantly Black areas.
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.” “Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office,” said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting “would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate.” // “I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities,” Wilson added.
They’re explicitly saying these minorities are more likely to be confused.
About your point about “they can’t be racist because they’re black”… yes they absolutely fucking can. There is zero need to call on race here. “Our constituents report confusion leading to under voting” is all that needed to be said. Tying it to race is…. Racist. Tying it to age is ageist.
What if you read it as
Undervoting is a problem that, due to socio-economic issues, disproportionately affects people of color
So they’re actively trying to prevent black people from being disenfranchised (if undervoting counts as such).
However, using this as an argument to oppose ranked choice voting, instead of informing the voters better, is definitely wrong.
You can read anything any way you want if you literally rewrite like you just did. That’s a straight up Trump-style move.
They don’t care about disenfranchising anyone and you damn well know it. This is solely about Democrats worrying about competing against independent progressives in DC elections where they stand a very real chance of losing power if the voting system stops favoring them.
They are progressive black local leaders representing their community. Not racists. Not “corpo dems” haha.
And they are saying minorities, the elderly, and the poor are more likely to be undermined because of lack of resources to be made aware of said changes. They did it last year, and many people in those districts didn’t make a second vote. Which means their vote counted less than others.
Under voting isn’t a theory. It’s something that’s demonstrably occurred in these specific districts. They can see how people vote and notice that it is happening.
Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.
The local dem chapters in these types of districts aren’t Hilary Clinton, bro. They’re the opposite.
Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF.
There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.
Just to be clear: I am generally for ranked choice. And I’m generally for calling out corporate dems. But I’m not cool with disingenuousness, even/especially from people I otherwise stand in agreement with on issues in general.
Calling these particular people racists is exactly what Trumpers would do. Btw. Same shitty playbook.
Lmao. DC Dems are 100% corporate. You act like someone can’t be black and a corporate shill at the same time, which of course is racist.
This is solely about suppressing competition from independents and third party candidates. They’ll use any argument they can to maintain the monopoly on power they have in DC. You’re falling for it.
Because you say so. And these black people who live in these districts are racist against themselves too. Apt.
People who use words like shill whenever they have nothing else to say are funny. You probably believe in pizzagate.
White Savior says what?
Absurdist philosophy helps me. Worth a try.
deleted by creator
Absurdism is Nihilism with a joke ;)
It means nothing, but it’s ridiculous.
deleted by creator
Praise Bob!
Doubt they care. They do anything to uphold a two party system where they can raise campaign contributions from the same corporate interests that also contribute to radical regressives, while at the same time being able to hold some offices solely by being the marginally less shitty party (at least publicly). Ranked choice makes a third party a viable option and the Democrats as a political party with no real stances doesn’t make sense in the world where they aren’t the sole alternative.
That’s the argument they’re trying for in court, which is not the same as what they think. The reality is much more mundane. Probably more frustrating too.
Ranked choice voting makes it easier for incumbents to lose. It makes it harder (but still… not actually difficult) for retiring office holder to coronate their hand-picked successor. That’s all this comes down to. Especially in a place like DC that votes for a single party by such wide margins. Places that lopsided, in a FPTP primary system, once elected a politician is all but incapable of losing. Even to horrible, horrible scandal.
Ranked choice threatens that. If DC switched to it overnight, >90% of the incumbents would win reelection trivially. In fact I’d be surprised if any of them that ran again lost. But they don’t like that it goes from just short of a guarantee, to still really highly certain.
deleted by creator
…PS5?
deleted by creator
Sorry buddy. We can’t trust you with that sort of responsibility. /s
This is about protecting establishment career politicians, not about what voters want and not about what they are capable of understanding.
Estblishment corporate dems 🤝 All elected republicans:
Disenfranchising the American people in the name of job security.
deleted by creator
Yep, nailed it.
Damnit democrats all I want from you is voting reform and then we can move onto better parties.
Although I guess this is them realizing that and not wanting to let go.
Neoliberals only want business-as-usual. The Reich want to enslave everyone not mega-rich. Neither party want positive change.
I miss r/neoliberal
DNC loves calling poor people too stupid to help themselves. Insane that they don’t get called out more on this.
apparently poor people are to stupid to know they are being talked about that way.
“Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.”
Why would only Black Neighborhoods be confused by this? Elaborate… No go ahead, be my guest, you brought it up, now tell me.
Because they might vote for an outsider candidate, and they might win.
Because “condescending white savior” is a key Democratic party platform and has been for decades
Ah yes, people so “tolerant” that you’d rather they just call a slur.
Funniest moment was Biden patting himself on the back for all he was doing to help the black community by banning menthols
Glad he didn’t go through with that, if black people want to stop smoking menthols… they’ll resort to this handy onestep process
Step 1. Do not buy or smoke menthols
Imagine that, letting human beings make their own choices
Goddamnit democrats. This is some republican shit.
I’ll be the last person to say that both sides same bullshit, but Democrats are still politicians. They seek positions of influence and power, and they need public support to do it. There’s a certain type of person who thrives in that environment, and they are absolutely the last type of person you want in leadership roles.
Anyone who is currently in power will oppose ranked choice voting because it breaks up the monolithic power structure that so many powerful people use as leverage. It reduces the effectiveness of wedge issues, which means leaders will actually have to present nuanced opinions on many topics. It decreases extremism, which means their opponents will likely be closer ideologically to themselves, all of which is better for the voters and worse for the politicians.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged. It makes the rational choice incredibly easy. Ranked choice will break up both parties into smaller categories, killing the demon they would rather be fighting.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged
I feel like it’s important to point out right now that this was literally Hillary’s strategy in 2016. Google “HRC Pied Piper”, we have the email where she told the DNC to help boost the campaigns of the crazier republicans like Trump. The theory was that he would be too crazy for the general election. The fact was she vastly underestimated the triumvirate powers of voter apathy, right wing populist rhetoric and the average person’s disdain for her personally and was halfway through her victory lap in Texas when she realized that she actually lost.
So yeah, if you were one of the people harmed by the hateful rhetoric and incompetent policymaking of the Trump administration he’s absolutely at fault, but it’s important to remember that the DNC was willing to gamble with your safety and stability in order to maintain power. They’re aristocrats first, then they choose what flavor of aristocrat to be.
Hillary is as responsible for the Trump administration as anyone.
They may not be the same but they’re both racist as fuck. Republicans see POCs as animals and Democrats see them as children.
deleted by creator
They talk about buying dinner, then stiff us with the check afterwards
Like they’re different? At least Republicans who are racist are honest about their racism. Democrats who are racist just like to pretend they’re racist for the good of the minorities they’re racist against. "Poor black people, they won’t understand how to list their 3 favorite candidates in order, we can’t possibly make this change.
Do people honestly think democrats WANT any changes to happen? They’re elites in power. They’re going to hold onto that power as long as they can.
using racist dog whistles to protect shit policies for the entrenched benefactors of said shit policies.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Oh no, poor people are too dumb to know that the only right choice is the corporate democrat! They might want people who represent their interest and not just some guy who will uphold the status quo!
The more I think about it this is a brilliant strategy for democrats to establish ranked choice nationally. Nothing gets a republican harder then something the democrats don’t want. And if I’ve learned anything if conservatives want something it is all but inevitable.
Reverse psychology….bold
Unfortunately the Republicans agree with them on this point
“Someone could get the most votes, and not win!” McCarthy said at the time… “So if you come in 3rd, you win. What? ‘I got a lot of second votes, I got a lot of 3rd vote — what does that mean?’”
I don’t think it’s the “Black areas” that are getting confused about how it works. Or perhaps he’s just pretending to not understand? 🤔🤔
His heart is black
The system will fight to prevent systemic changes that weaken the system.
Is it just me or is this statement blatantly racist? Black people are too stupid and so we must limit the way they vote? Where did I hear that before? The democratic party knows they’ll lose power if they implemented, but to stoop that low…
From the article:
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.”
“Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office,” said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting “would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate.”
They aren’t saying black people can’t figure it out, they’re reporting that voters in predominantly black areas haven’t. It’s not a statement of belief, it’s a statement of fact. Now, the solution should be to provide resources to educate them on how the new system works, not to abandon it. That would take effort though, and wouldn’t work to maintain the status quo.
It’s the “noble savage”/“white savior” trope again. People really think they’re fighting racism by implying minorities can’t make their own decision.
In not criticizing allies, to be clear. I’m criticizing people who aren’t comfortable having personal relationships with minorities, and abuse progressivism to make themselves feel like they aren’t part of the problem.
If the dems actually cared about the voters, their primaries wouldnt be rigged.
lmao ok sure
We wanted Bernie. We got a Clinton.
Party primaries are under no legal obligation to be fair and thr DNC are pretty open about changing policies to rig the outcomes of their primaries.
The polling place where I was during Bernie’s first primary was turning away people with provisional ballots, telling them they weren’t allowed to vote with those in a primary. They were allowed, it was just that the vast majority of provisional ballot holders were Bernie voters who were voting for the first time because there was finally someone they felt excited to vote for.
I raised a fuss and Karened my way to getting the director on the phone and demanded that she tell the supervisors that they needed to allow the voters to vote. I said that this was a huge problem and had obviously been happening all day. She said “Were you there all day to see it? No? Then there is nothing you can do about it!”
Also there is the part where the DNC’s defense in court (when they were sued for taking donations from Bernie supporters who believed they were unbiased) was “We were so obviously biased that anyone who didn’t notice was not paying attention, we gave no illusion of fairness. Also, the rule that says we have to be unbiased is our own rule, not a law and we can break our own rules if we want to!” And they won.
Remember: Democrats are just as dependent on FPTP for power as republicans
Id say even more so. Few if any one votes for Republicans for the sole reason of them not being democrats. A much larger portion of the democrats voter base is people who simply dislike republicans more.
Really I am not even talking about voters when I am talking about power, I am talking about funding.
The duopoly grants the 2 parties extra funding that third parties can’t access. This prevents real third party candidates from running unless they are already billionaire-connected. It saves the billionaires the trouble of trying to buy many parties. They can just buy the 2.
The funding issue, I think, also exists in forms seprate from the duopoly and needs some kind of fix in addition to RCV. Any party that gives people an alternative to politicians that are bought will clearly not appease donors seeking to buy a politician nearly as much as the big two do. I think both problems need to be tackled, and probably close together, for it to work well. The amount of depth there is to the problems that plague American democracy is honestly really disheartening. I feel many American systemic issues are like this where the current system is so far gone we’d need multiple different laws of varrying scope just to start fixing one aspect.
As I understand it the third parties could be funded better just from RCV because they would likely receive a higher percentage of the vote once the spoiler effect is no longer in place from FPTP. If they get more than 5% they get some funding and I think it scales up with percentage. Source from quick google, might be out of date.
USA democracy is frustrating. The 2 parties have spent close to 100 years entrenching themselves at this point. People who want to dig them out need to understand how they are holding on. This competition in politics paper outlines a few of the changes they’ve made to consolidate power. Things like party primaries, co-opting communication about elections, restructuring campaign finance law, etc.
You can read the whole PDF online if you are interested.
Don’t patronize your own voters. Not a good idea.
How else are establishment Democrats gonna stay in power? They’re afraid they’re going to lose to progressive candidates. Voters are going to vote more confidently in the candidates they believe in rather than the ones they believe will win. In rank voting there’s less fear that the worst candidate will win since it’s not a 1 or the other anymore.
That’s a bit backwards.
Instant runoff voting makes it so ranking a second choice can’t hurt your first choice. But voting honestly for your first choice instead of e.g. staying home could cause your second choice to lose and your last choice to win.
That happened in the recent Alaskan election. If a bunch of Palin voters stayed home, they’d have gotten Begich. Instead, Palin voters single-handedly elected Democrat by voting honestly.
That’s their point though. The current winners know they wouldn’t be the first choice if we had a system that allowed honest voting. It might save them against republicans, but it gives progressives even more of a chance.
EDIT: Also sure, if Palin voters would’ve voted strategically their side might’ve won. I’m not sure if it’s because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would’ve been safer as it’d allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don’t think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn’t even want to do as their second choice.
EDIT: Also Palin voters staying home wouldn’t have helped. Peltola was already at 128K votes (48.8%) with Begich at 61K. Palin voters staying home would’ve meant that Peltola would’ve won in round 1, as Begich would’ve had a higher percentage but Peltola would’ve been boosted up to ~67%.
There were actually 2 elections here.
The special election in September held because of Don Youngs death, and a general election in November.
In the special election, Peltola started out with 74,817 votes, 39.7% of the total. Begich had 52,536.
If 5,804 people who voted Palin 1st Begich 2nd stayed home, Palin would have been eliminated. Begich would have gotten a bit under 28k more votes and Peltola would have gotten about 3.5k more votes. That puts Begich at about 80k, and Peltola at about 78k.
My point is that ranked choice is not a system that allows honest voting. Much as in plurality, voters vote honestly at their own risk.
There are systems that do, and also systems that make better tradeoffs balancing later-no-harm against favorite betrayal.
I get what you mean now, but I think it’s significant that many Begich voters didn’t want Palin if they’d rather the other side win. Or not ranking anyone at all, which might be an issue of R messaging or unwillingness to support a different candidate.
Palin was also the incumbent, which means people will be likely to vote for them. I don’t see that being avoided unless she would’ve dropped out and endorsed Begich but it sounds like they weren’t on good terms.
Yes different ranking systems could be better (though it is nuanced), but it’s still a massive step up from FPtP.
Also Palin voters staying home wouldn’t have helped. Peltola was already at 128K votes (48.8%) with Begich at 61K. Palin voters staying home would’ve meant that Peltola would’ve won in round 1, as Begich would’ve had a higher percentage but Peltola would’ve been boosted up to ~67%.
Most other voting systems would actually have elected Begich.
He was the Condorcet winner; voters preferred him over Palin and voters preferred him over Peltola.
That’s a stretch, and you’re likely assuming that all Palin voters would vote for Begich. Again Peltola already had 48.8% in round 1 and wasn’t the incumbent.
I also don’t think weaker wide appeal (beyond majority) is the best way, as that seems like a potential race to a position-less (or simply inoffensive but ineffective) candidate. Though in this case it seems close, at least if it’s red vs blue moderates.
Also sure, if Palin voters would’ve voted strategically their side might’ve won. I’m not sure if it’s because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would’ve been safer as it’d allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don’t think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn’t even want to do as their second choice.
Nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.
That said, “because we might lose” is not a good reason to not make the system better.
That said, “because we might lose” is not a good reason to not make the system better.
Establishment Democrats aren’t refusing to make the system better because Democrats in general might lose; they’re refusing because each of them individually is worried he might lose to a more progressive or leftist challenger. It’s blatant power-hungry selfishness.
I agree in principle with what you’re saying, but there is an “establishment” that also has a vested interest in the politicians they own remaining in power. That establishment sees itself as the Democratic Party, so they would disagree with you.
Either way, the point stands. If you are afraid of letting voters vote because you won’t like the results, then you’re not really promoting democracy at all.
Or what, you’ll vote 3rd party? Good luck with that. /s
.jpeg){kind=link}