|
enki42 posted:Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power. It favors centrist compromise GOVERNMENTS, but indirectly through a multiparty system. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure the main difference between ranked choice and proportional is that ranked choice preserves districts and is thus not perfectly proportional. So it's inferior, but in the specific context of the United States it would probably be more palatable than straight proportional because it wouldn't be as big a change and might actually be the only constitutional method The Oldest Man posted:Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia Ranked choice with single member districts is different than with multimember districts, what's being proposed in the US is 3-5 member districts for the House, like in Ireland At the very least it would separate the Democratic Party into two or three distinct parties and make the kind of the "progressive" propaganda line being discussed in this thread impossible because Chuck Schumer and friends would be in an overtly center-right party and couldn't claim to be secret progressives icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 5, 2020 |
#
¿
Dec 5, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Also, like, Australia is probably the closest comparison to the US and is a shithole, but is still a lot more well-functioning and less lovely than the US
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
I do think that one of the biggest outcomes of the Biden admin will be the collapse of this sort of "progressive" position. Even if they win both Georgia races, even as the entire theory of Biden and Chuck Schumer as politicians is that they're ideal for precisely this situation, where cajoling one or three moderate Senators is the most important task, the Democrats won't deliver jack poo poo. If you're Paul Krugman or the American Prospect or Vox or whatever you can only go on insisting that the Democrats are secret progressives, no really, for so long before you can't do it with a straight face anymore. I think the facade will collapse before Biden's term is done. The smart ones like Yglesias are already doing a neo-neocon turn and fleeing the ship. Kamala will end up running in 2024 on a basically anti-left platform and will be stomped by Marco Rubio. Also, special mention to Warren and her people, who've been humiliated and clowned to a degree I don't think even the most bearish observers a year ago would have predicted icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Dec 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's dramatically overgenerous to refer to incrementalism in a discussion like this, because it implies that the Democratic Party's actions are "making things better too slowly," when the reality is that they don't make things better at all on the net, and in fact make a variety of things worse. Yeah the basic problem is just that a huge number of liberals really truly deep down believe that the policy status quo of the George H W Bush administration was optimal. This is maybe changing a tiny bit but that lasted an incredibly long time. Obamacare was just Clintoncare which was literally just a personal mandate fig leaf on what was assumed to be a basically well functioning private insurance market in a mental image of 1991
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 21:02
|
|