politics
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
view the rest of the comments
In a FPTP voting system, a vote for a third party will dilute the vote of the party closest-aligned to the preferences of the voter casting it- an effect that implicitly aids the party farthest-away from the voter's preference. This means the winner doesn't need a majority, they just need divided opponents.
In a ranked-choice system, by contrast, the voter can signal their top preference without creating the spoiler-effect described above.
The existence of this spoiler effect in FPTP requires voters to vote based on how they bet other voters will vote, instead of signaling their actual preferences, in order to avoid dividing their support and throwing the election to the opposing side. This prevents the parties from knowing what voters really want, while giving donors and insiders massive leverage by way of giving them the ability to influence which candidates voters will bet 'can win'. It's harmful to democracy, to the voters, and to the public interest, but it's fantastic for party insiders and donors that want things the public doesn't want.
You just agreed with my point. Third parties harms the existing parties by adding the possibility of voters having more choice than either of the two dominant parties. Therefore it is naive to think party insiders would implement this change willingly. Hence supporting the Forward party which has committed to changing the FPTP via RCV.
No, I just argued that voting 3rd party in an FPTP system is bad for the voter doing it, bad for the public interest as well.
I agree on the point that RCV is needed, but I call bullshit if you're claiming I just supported Forward party (a third party, in a FPTP election) because I don't. Sure, in your opinion, I should, but I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, it's very off-putting.
It's nice that they're promising to support RCV, but I don't believe promises like that any more than I believe promises the Democrats might make about enacting election reform like RCV. IMHO, for so long as they're running as a 3rd party in a FPTP system, they're a threat to split the left and hand an election to actual fascists.
Right now, I think the place to press for RCV is in the primaries of the major parties, and at the State and local level, not by getting people to gamble on splitting the electorate and throwing the result of a federal general election to the the party that doesn't govern and can only seem to agree that the purpose of government is punishing people that aren't like them
Yeah, I was referring to the point that third parties help to dilute the strength of the duopoly.
I can understand your viewpoint of wanting to change the system from within the parties. My viewpoint is that expecting party insiders to change the way things are done is foolish. By your own admission, current party insiders have no incentive to do so. The current system is fantastic for them.
The reason I trust that Forward would support RCV is because it is the only way they have a chance to succeed as an outside political party in the FPTP voting system.
I also get not wanting to split the vote in the circumstances outline. However, I think it is worth considering that most local elections simply do not have any competition. There are thousands of uncontested local races where no one competes with the dominant party. That just leads to the independent and loosely affiliated people that make up ~30+% of the voting populations having no voice to change how the system is implemented.
I guess you are more hopeful than me in the current state of party institutions. I view them as corrupted, dogmatic, and unyielding to any possibility change. But I applaud anyone willing to try to change them, even if I think it is unlike to work.
Fair enough, but there's no law saying it has to be done from within the parties. Alaska now uses RCV in its elections- a thing the Alaska GOP does not like- largely because Alaskans voted for an initiative to do so and it stuck.
The result of its implementation? After 2 eliminations rounds of ranked-choice voting, the running was down to Mary Peltola (D) and Sarah Palin (MAGA), but enough first-and-second-round supporters of Chris Bye and Nick Begich (R) preferred Peltola to Palin. With their first-pick candidates eliminated from the running, Peltola had a majority and that ended the process.
In the same election, they re-elected Lisa Murkowski (R) to the Senate and Dunleavy (R) to the Governor's mansion. The result: it looks a lot like RCV reduces the leverage of MAGA money within the GOP, and it will be fascinating to see what effect it might have on the Dems.
Eventually, things will have to change in a party that's still mostly being run by people that came of age in the Watergate era. Your Pelosis and Clintons and Bidens and Feinsteins won't hang on forever, and eventually the guard is going to change. But again, this doesn't have to be initiated from within the parties.
Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the implementation. Some states are somewhat supportive of RCV and similar voting systems and I applaud them for being open to change.
Uhh, there kinda is when it is basically either democrats or republicans who make each local states elections laws. It is true that sometimes that can be worked around via the voter initiatives. However, the state legislatures can usually amend or repeal those ballot measures if they have a majority of the legislature.
True, they will change but I'm not convinced that those who replace the leader will be any better than the current leaders. I think the only people allowed power within a party are the ones most beholden to their funders.
In what way does addition to a third sum dilute the first two sums?
If Candidate A has one vote, Candidate B has one vote, and Candidate C has one vote, does adding one to Candidate C's sum somehow detract from Candidate A's sum?
Does it somehow give Candidate A an advantage over Candidate B, who still have equal and unchanged sums?
Of course not. That would violate basic math.
It's interesting, however, that you highlight a basic need for divided opponents as the con to a third party... yet it applies better to the current duopolistic nature where either party is increasingly dependent on nothing more than the polarized and divided voterbase. Look no further than continued blue no matter who etc. and ongoing painting of entire parties in a given light to the neglect of the actual candidates.
FPTP places no such requirement on voters - the only presence of such is your absurd insistence such a requirement exists.
Do you see this requirement in place in some form of legislation you must adhere to? No?
Ironically, if a voter signaled their actual preferences - to the disregard of blue no matter who and similar nonsense - it's likely third parties would be faring far better. Unfortunately, you and others here seem to be dead-set on vote shaming outside the duopoly.
Oh? Canvassing has ceased to exist? The results of other elections - especially those in primaries where the primary differences are policy choices and messaging (to those policies) - can't serve as any form of indicator?
Interesting.
You once-more describe the current state of things while attempting to describe some other state of things.
The only harm here is your insistence a voter should vote how you believe they should vote to the neglect of their actual preferences - a thing that actually damages democracy.
It's not addition, it's division . If you divide a finite pool of votes among more candidates, the effect is that candidates similar to each other will draw from the same pool of voters, while not drawing votes from the candidate most-ideologically opposed to them. Imagine, if you will, the scenario with a green and blue candidates B and C, where a third (let's call him "A", and place him close to the greens) gets in to the race.
A is third-party, center-green
B is green
C is blue
In this scenario, there are two candidates dividing the pool of green/center-voters between them. A and B probably aren't appealing to any of C's supporters. Let's say that A and B got 25% and 35% respectively, you've got a green-blue split of 60-40 that awards the blue candidate victory because it got the remaining 40% and A and B split a green-majority's votes enough to lose. A entering this race divided (or diluted) the greens' available votes.
Because splitting up a majority of votes can hand victory to an undivided minority party, there is very much an incentive for voters that don't want their side to lose to coordinate voting to vote on the one that "can win". This involves betting on how other voters will vote, in order to avoid splitting their majority. That in turn transforms voting from an exercise in selecting your preference into an exercise in voting where you think other voters on your side of the spectrum will vote.
A ranked-choice voting system (which allows the voter to signal their choices in ranked order) does not require them to vote in the way they imagine most of their ideological allies will vote- it allows them to send their preferences as discrete signals instead.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand it, and you would do well not to finger-wag about basic math