pull down to refresh

The (Predictable) Defeat of Moderate Reforms | The Libertarian Institutelibertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-predictable-defeat-of-moderate-reforms/?mc_cid=6ae51f835a
143 sats \ 5 comments \ @Undisciplined 18 Nov Politics_And_Law
Joseph Solis-Mullen breaks down rank choice voting in his new article.
"In the 2024 general election, several states and cities across the country put forth initiatives aimed at adopting ranked-choice voting (RCV) and nonpartisan primaries. These measures were promoted as essential steps in reducing political polarization, creating more representative elections, and empowering independent and moderate voices. However, results showed a significant resistance to change, as most RCV initiatives failed at the statewide level, with the only notable success coming from Washington DC, which passed both open primaries and RCV."
write
preview
related posts
23 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Nov
The outcome reveals substantial challenges in advancing election reform, despite growing public dissatisfaction with the current two-party political system. This article examines what happened, explores the concept of ranked choice voting, and considers why it remains a promising tool for disrupting the duopoly of American politics.
Yeah, as someone living in a RCV shthole, I can tell you that is one way to a one party state. Let people have one vote and count that one vote. Ranking your choices and then eliminating the losers is giving the voters more than one vote because of the ranking, eliminating then revoting. It is a real shtty sytem. We almost revoked it.
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Nov
This is an idea that sounds pretty good. The reasoning seems to make sense.
When you actually study the theory underlying RCV, though, you discover that there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary way to aggregate these choices. This means the party that manages to pass an RCV system can discretely design it to give them an advantage.
reply
19 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Nov
What do you mean "discretely" there is no discretely about it. It is in-your-face rigging. We have a one-party situation and there is no breaking out, shy of revoking RCV. Apparently, Joseph Solis-Mullen does not live in one of these sh*tholes.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Nov
What I mean is the design of the RCV system doesn't have to obviously favor one party or the other.
The counting and scoring rules might sound perfectly reasonable, but there were literally an infinite number of other options that would have seemed just as reasonable.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Nov
Ok, seeming reasonable and being reasonable are two vastly different situations. The obviousnes of the situation is not always there. It is quite hidden because it requires a majority vote to put into place. Not everyone in any party appreciates rigging.
reply