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.
- 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.
- 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
its so weird that we have a difficult to understand electoral college system and yet one of the common arguments against ranked choice and party list voting is "its too hard to understand"
You don't need to understand the EC to not spoil a FPTP ballot. You do need to understand a more complex process to not spoil a ranked choice ballot. That's an argument I agree with in favor of score, STAR, or approval voting.
Of course the fact that it is mildly easier to understand than some alternatives does not excuse the fact that FPTP is awful for democracy.
Filing out an RCV ballot is no different than any other ranking system. Rank politicians in the order you'd like to vote for them. You may leave some or all blank.
That's it. That's the voter instruction. It's not hard.
Just re-read my comment, I didn't write anything about spoiling the ballot. I had typed it out but forgot deleting it. Sorry.
And giving two candidates the same rank? You are pretending that I wrote it is hard to do. I wrote that it is easier to spoil a ballot. People make mistakes.
Needing to rank candidates relative to each other is different from score voting where you just rank them.
A proper RCV ballot is just numbering candidates. On a computer screen, you might drag the names into order. Score voting isn't just ranking them, you give each one a rating and then there's about 3 different ways those scores can be used to determine a winner. RCV is simple, easy, and better than FPTP.