|
The superior voting system is This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| First-past-the-post voting |
|
1 | 1.47% |
| Preferential voting (IRV) |
|
67 | 98.53% |
| Total: | 68 votes | ||
|
It’s a bad system and the people pushing it seem to be Democratic centrists anxious about the leftward movement of the party. This is intended as a way to prevent a scenario where left wing candidates get the Dem nomination and centrists are forced to vote for them. This way a centrist candidate can win by dint of secondary preferences of the upper-middle class suburban Republican constituency that Dem operatives are so so desperate to court for whatever loving reason What they should actually do is proprtional voting, but I’m of the opinion that the strong presidency is the real problem and that changing the electoral system for Congress won’t do much In any case Austalia and Ireland aren’t exactly model polities. Ireland was a weird corrupt one-party Catholic theocracy for decades, Australia is as racist and right wing as we are. Some of the ranked-choice proposals also include multimember districts, and the premiere example of that system was pre-90s Japan, which I should have to say no more about icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 11, 2018 |
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Where are you looking at for an MMP chamber with multi-member districts? All the implementations I'm familiar with use single-member districts. (Not that it couldn't be done easily enough...) Multiple of the proposals I've seen have included multimember districts. Seems that FairVote, one of the biggest groups pushing ranked choice, wants it They mention it at the end of this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/ranked-choice-voting-maine-san-francisco.html quote:Ranked-choice voting can’t single-handedly fix America’s broken elections, but it’s a worthwhile experiment, and it’s already proved to make for a better process, particularly in candidate-heavy primaries. If it’s combined with other electoral reforms, like multimember districts that can more accurately reflect the political makeup of a region, it could do even more to help voters feel that their voices are being heard, even if they’re in the minority. And that could help drive up turnout, which is notoriously bad in midterm elections. This Vox article about FairVote endorses it https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/26/15425492/proportional-voting-polarization-urban-rural-third-parties quote:Picture how FairVote’s Fair Representation plan would play out in, for example, New York City. (The group has graphic representations on its website of how its plan could work in every state.) Instead of a dozen congressional districts covering varying parts of New York City and Long Island, FairVote’s plan would yield three larger districts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:what about usually-Republican proletariat putting leftists as their second choice because they're offering real, productive solutions Maybe. You'd have to look at the composition of the districts. My guess though is that the places where that might work are a lot fewer than places where the thing I talked about will happen, which are solid-blue areas (except California because of their jungle primary). This really does seem like at least part of the rationale is to prevent solid-blue places like the Pacific Northwest from being captured by left-wing Democratic House delegations kustomkarkommando posted:This is a weird criticism - the ruling party in Ireland you are referring to tried multiple times to abolish preferential voting and return to FPTP as even though they routinely captured between 45-50% of the vote to maintain power on several occasions they had to make deals with floating independents. The multimember system allowed Fianna Fail to stay in office forever by hugging the center. Conservatives in the party wanted FPTP so they could have a true conservative party in a two-party system. Same with Japan except in Japan they succeeded. The right wing of the LDP had wanted FPTP for decades but it didn't happen until 1994. Likewise, centrist Dems want this because it will help them electorally icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:I don't see how what you're suggesting is a downside. It favours candidates that appeal to the majority of the electorate? It doesn't favour candidates that are on the fringe? The candidate who wins is supported by a majority of the electorate rather than a smaller proportion? How are these not reflecting the will of the voter? The only states this would have any chance of being enacted in are already blue, so it would serve to retrench centrist power there while doing nothing to the increasingly gerymandered and right-wing delegations from red states. That seems bad on net to me It seems like a system that could be decent if imposed nationally all at once, but doing it piecemeal state by state would be a disaster IMO. PR on the other hand could be introduced piecemeal state by state and would slowly have the effect of making the Democratic Party more and more of a centralized, ‘normal’ Westminster party as state parties became PR parties over time The basic problem with American politics is that a large part of the white voting public are essentially Nazis. I see a regime in which everyone else is consolidated under a political coalition dominated by a left which is ruthless and cynical about the exercise of power despite it not having majority support nationally as superior to one dominated by centrists who are constantly trying to reach out to upper middle class suburban Republicans and fighting people to the left of them icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 22:28
|
|