798
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
798 points (96.0% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4577 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.~~ EDIT: More correct point added above
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.
So they actually published the complete ballot counts for this election.
With the ballots as cast, in head to head elections, Begich beats Peltola 87264-79126, and Begich beats Palin 100311-63249. This is mostly due to Begich getting more second place votes than either Peltola or Palin. For example, 33761 Palin voters put Begich second, 3437 put Peltola second, and 21526 bullet voted (i.e. put down no second choice). Similarly, Begich got about 10x the number of second place votes from Peltola voters that Palin got.
Score Voting activist Warren Smith has a write-up on viXra: https://vixra.org/abs/2210.0103
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.
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.
Establishment Dems cutting their face to spite their nose. Everyone knows ranked choice means more Dem support than Repub, but also opens up 3rd party influence.
This shit is why the rest of the developed world says the US has two right wing parties.
Or what, you’ll vote 3rd party? Good luck with that. /s
Maybe they know their Base rather well.
This is the same Base that election after election after election needs to be reminded to keep their ID's up to date as if that was some kind of new rule all of a sudden.
And they need to be reminded all the time that Republicans will try to trick them by making fake calls about polling places being closed or moved.