That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
In places where they actually have multiple parties, say 10 or so at least. It is hard to not find a party that you like more than the others.
So if someone doesn’t vote, it means none of the parties are good enough. Otherwise they would vote blank. And if too many people do not vote, it sends a clear signal to the government that they need to change something fast in order to prevent an uprising.
Just don’t go with the mistake we have in Australia where your vote has to transfer.
At the end of the day we effectively have a two party system, because eventually any minor party will funnel their votes towards the two large and near identical NeoLib parties.
So all left votes go to Labor and all right votes go to Liberal, as such Labor don’t give a shit about leftist voters and instead try to poach right wing Lib voters because they know there’s zero chance the left will ever preference Lib so they can’t lose them.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps. Caucuses are already essentially ranked choice.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others. Or, gives you the most charismatic demagogue. Notably, Joe Biden and Donald Trump check those boxes.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps
This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it’s called “instant runoff”), and that’s a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others
Ranked Choice Voting gives you (more often than not*)the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.
I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it’s to put the people back in power.
If the most popular candidate happens to be too “moderate” for your tastes, then it’s up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can’t do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?
There are some statistically possible scenarios in which the most broadly popular does not win a RCV election, but they are far less likely than any version of our current first-past-the-post plurality voting system.
Sure! It’s also called approval voting. But the key is it’s called STAR: score then automatic runoff. You rank any of the candidates from 0 to 5. If you don’t rank them, it’s a 0. Then you total all the scores and the highest score wins.
The cool thing about STAR is that I can rank some people a 1 saying “they’re better than nothing!” While voting for my favorites with 5’s. The highest score wins, so the most approved by most people wins.
There it’s indistinguishable from being uninterested in politics. And politicians have no incentives to cater to those that seem unlikely to vote. Null and blank votes are better at showing disaproval of the system, and at making politicians rethink their strategies
To be fair, coming from one of those places, I do not want to vote either. The socialists party is crony as shit with multiple corruptions affair, and the only other options are the liberals. Guess I’ll vote far-left, but I don’t really like them either for they are statists.
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
In places where they actually have multiple parties, say 10 or so at least. It is hard to not find a party that you like more than the others.
So if someone doesn’t vote, it means none of the parties are good enough. Otherwise they would vote blank. And if too many people do not vote, it sends a clear signal to the government that they need to change something fast in order to prevent an uprising.
We need ranked choice voting. First past the post virtually guarantees a two party system.
Just don’t go with the mistake we have in Australia where your vote has to transfer.
At the end of the day we effectively have a two party system, because eventually any minor party will funnel their votes towards the two large and near identical NeoLib parties.
So all left votes go to Labor and all right votes go to Liberal, as such Labor don’t give a shit about leftist voters and instead try to poach right wing Lib voters because they know there’s zero chance the left will ever preference Lib so they can’t lose them.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps. Caucuses are already essentially ranked choice.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others. Or, gives you the most charismatic demagogue. Notably, Joe Biden and Donald Trump check those boxes.
This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it’s called “instant runoff”), and that’s a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.
Ranked Choice Voting gives you (more often than not*)the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.
I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it’s to put the people back in power.
If the most popular candidate happens to be too “moderate” for your tastes, then it’s up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can’t do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?
We need STAR voting more. Ranked choice voting is only marginally better than first past the post.
Could you explain star?
Sure! It’s also called approval voting. But the key is it’s called STAR: score then automatic runoff. You rank any of the candidates from 0 to 5. If you don’t rank them, it’s a 0. Then you total all the scores and the highest score wins.
More info here: https://www.starvoting.org
The cool thing about STAR is that I can rank some people a 1 saying “they’re better than nothing!” While voting for my favorites with 5’s. The highest score wins, so the most approved by most people wins.
I think that’s pretty clearly who this post was targeted at.
There it’s indistinguishable from being uninterested in politics. And politicians have no incentives to cater to those that seem unlikely to vote. Null and blank votes are better at showing disaproval of the system, and at making politicians rethink their strategies
I was gonna mention this: You don’t have to vote for anyone, and you can just lie after you leave the ballot blank.
To be fair, coming from one of those places, I do not want to vote either. The socialists party is crony as shit with multiple corruptions affair, and the only other options are the liberals. Guess I’ll vote far-left, but I don’t really like them either for they are statists.