It's a flaw of the system that it has become more accountable to special interests, with the rich holding disproportionate sway over this nation's politics. More recently, we've seen minority and extremist views gaining undue influence. These problems are not inherent to the two-party system, though. While more legitimate options can help, the issues run deeper, rooted in the structure of our political system: Regulatory capture, where the people being regulated are calling the shots The destruction of campaign finance reform Gerrymandering Voter suppression Diluted voter power (rural voters have much more power) And now, we're seeing outright anti-democratic measures being taken in the open. Unfortunately, there's little chance of meaningful change if voters continue to lose their power. This has been a concerted effort by the Republican Party over the past decade, and things have only gotten worse. That's why I am an exclusive Democratic voter, or for anyone who is willing to work towards fixing our election system. Until our system is stabilized and we're headed in the right direction, I wouldn't consider any other party or candidate at the federal level. I'm basically a one-issue voter - give power back to the voters and make it fair.
Biden should run. He has a better chance of winning than any other Democrat. Most of these poll respondents who say he shouldn't run will end up checking his box in the primary. And he's done a good job. And, it doesn't much matter to me if he up and dies in office. I don't get all the handwringing. Obviously he should run.
Agree with this - everyone really really should adopt RCV. That is one thing that absolutely reduces polarization.
While clutching their pearls, the Rs are saying 80 year old Biden is far too old to be POTUS, while 76 year old Trump is the perfect age.
Sorry the words I chose rub you the wrong way artistically, but that's not really a counterargument I can grapple with. I don't really know what else to say if you think a codified duopoly isn't the problem. Systemically engineered lack of choice begets literally every problem we're facing in our government today. Pointing out other country's problems isn't an argument against fixing our own, nor is it an argument against the reforms I support.
trump might win again, but it wont be because he is running against biden. we are still a year and a half away from the election. there are a lot of things that can happen between now and then. full-blown recession. global conflict. trump would have probably won in 2020 if not for covid and how he bungled the government response. telling the american people to drink bleach probably didnt help either. biden is smart enough to know not to tell us to ingest bleach, but a singular event and his handling of it could be all it takes.
and thus... Why Republicans are rallying against ‘woke’ ranked-choice voting | Washington Examiner Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton called it a “corrupt scam.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy dinged it as “woke.” New York Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney argued that it “disenfranchises” voters.
Except claiming that our system is the *root cause* of the problems while all the systems that use the method you want also have the exact same problems isn't an argument either. When system A has problem X, Y and Z. and system B has problem X, Y, and Z. It's unlikely that System A is the root cause of problems X, Y, and Z, or that switching to System B will fix problems X, Y, and Z.
It will never cease to amaze me that there are people on here (i.e. smart enough to use a computer) who think Trump can never win again. The man responded to a global crisis by ******** into his hand and smearing it on his face and nearly won re-election. Ming boggling hubris. Unfortunately some Democrats aren't getting on board either. https://www.virginiamercury.com/202...ed-choice-voting-again-democrats-still-arent/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...lection-ranked-choice-voting-new-york/617461/ We're seeing more movement on this with Dems, thankfully, but I get the feeling that may be circumstantial/temporary and could change depending on prevailing winds.
Then I guess we disagree that problem X Y and Z exist similarly among all the subjects in the experiment. Not surprising though, this is incredibly hard to quantify.
There will always be some local politicians who are against ideas that pose a risk to them. I'm more concerned when there is a broader attack against RCV, as we have seen with the leader of the Republicans calling it "woke." RCV is growing in popularity and has support among all types of voters. I hope to see election reform at the national level that requires all federal elections to use RCV (Rep Jamie Raskin introduced one, but it didn't gain any traction). There's no chance for that unless the Democrats take the House back, and even then, it's not likely. But I hope there is enough movement at the local level that eventually Congress will act.
What's funny to me is that RCV, to this point, seems to have been almost exclusively leveraged by Republicans (see Alaska). Liberals by nature are more keen to novelty and trait openness, so it seems like it would slide into their purview more easily. I think we will see it gain traction in Dem circles a lot soon, but whenever it starts threatening the power of the status quo (remember, it forces those at the top of the hierarchy to change, not vice versa) you will see a lot more overt hostility towards it from Dem leadership. This is where reflexive, blind party loyalty is toxic and counterproductive.
Yeah. A huge factor is the matter of power scaling. If our monkey brains can handle at the max ~145 genuine connections with other people, then hierarchies will become muddled the further down we go. It also means representation dilutes if the population grows to factors we can't deeply comprehend (1:10,000 vs 1:20,000,000). Some popular proposals have been to add more seats to congress or letting states decide by handing original powers from the Constitution back to them. Even if you increase the amount by tenfold, a rep can still potentially represent millions of people and the sheer amount of other reps would likely add more quagmire to the problem. With states, it's more or less shifting the burden to a different hierarchy while maintaining the pressures from before. More parties still have to simplify at the end in order to form ruling coalitions. Ruling coalitions usually win via 1 vs 1 (occasionally vs another 1) decisions, so the number scaling issue is still the same. Civilization has breached a level of unprecedented size to the point where no governmental system we've conceived can perfectly account for a nation's interests and be repeatable to a different nation. It's a bit touch and go. It's also cultural, and external circumstances definitely play upon it. Most of the world is playing catchup while some successful nations are viewed as stagnant. The US might be onto something when it loosens control for individuals to bet upon themselves, but when it's too lax, you get wealth inequality. Plus when a few generations are incredibly successful in its Golden Age, complacency and entitlement usually follows. I suppose that's a general problem in any form of government.
It's not just Alaska that has adopted ranked-choice voting statewide. Maine has also adopted it statewide. Nevada has a good chance of being next, as it was green-lighted in the 2022 midterms and the final outcome is forthcoming in the 2024 election. Many other localities have also adopted it. Ranked Choice Voting Information - FairVote As of April 2023, 63 American jurisdictions have RCV in place, reaching approximately 13 million voters. This includes 2 states, 3 counties, and 58 cities. Military and overseas voters cast RCV ballots in federal runoff elections in 6 states. 51 jurisdictions used RCV in their most recent elections, and 6 more will use it in their next elections. This includes several jurisdictions using the “gold standard” of proportional RCV. P.S. Yes, the result of the Alaska ranked-choice voting was the trigger for GOP leadership to speak up against it. You might see something similar on the Democratic side, but I think it's less likely and I hope not.
Bad idea? A regulators job is to take on corporate America. Not kiss lobbyist ass. Lina khan is literally transforming American economics for the poor and middle class. Did you see the big piece NEWSMAX a trump TV did on her? https://www.newsmax.com/politics/khan-big-tech/2023/04/21/id/1117086/ Lina khan who's tackling PBMs, breaking up big tech, fighting for farmers, banning non compete clauses. She's the only person who's actually fighting the system while you have bozos crying about nihilistic bullshit in this thread. My issue with the folks crying the world is collapsing is none of the folks follow policy. It's all vibes Do you guys sincerely believe the things you're writing? "Hey let's run third parties and hold hands and sing songs" isn't any reality. Social media is what drives up negative partisanship. It has nothing to do with the parties. The MEDIA ecosystem we live is what causes the negative environment. What has bernie sanded an "independent" ever accomplished in the senate ? Did he pass any major bills as his 40+ in senate ?
